Leaderboard

Logging in for just a minute to weigh in on this because it's so personal to me and because I don't know who else to vent to. First, @Vort lifts are illegal in all but one or two competitions. So that's really a non issue. Regardless....agreed. Stupid.......etc... So most of you probably don't know this because I haven't mentioned it but I was a ballroom dancer all through highschool and college and have competed in the highest amateur level dance competitions at BYU and other places many, many times. BYU has always held different standards than other competitions, and even the Pros competing for the national championships at BYU have been required to abide by BYU's standards to compete. The primary way this has been seen is in the dress. Ballroom Dance outfits can be very immodest. BYU ballroom competitions do not require the same level of dress that they would on campus, obviously, but they do have standards. The woman's dress, for example, must come down to mid thigh (including slits in the back, etc.). The shoulder straps for the women must be at least an inch thick. The man cannot wear a see-through top. Stuff like that. Additionally there are rules against lewd dance moves that will get you disqualified. Once again, this is still subjective, and what's considered appropriate on the dance floor in competition might be inappropriate in other places. But straight-up grinding and the like or butt grabs or such would get one disqualified for certain. But full body contact is required in certain dances ("Standard" dances such as waltz, foxtrot, etc.). Dips and sexually provocative movement is common in the Latin style. All ballroom dancing is a "sexual" style of dance in that it is created for the sexes to do with one another in roles -- the female and the male. The interplay between the sexes is a part of ballroom. Sex (not the act, but the "gender" difference) is core to it. Even in same-sex dancing, one of the partners must take the role of the female, and one of the male. The dances work that way. Both people cannot lead. Both people cannot move forward at the same time. Both people cannot dip each other simultaneously. Etc. So now we have a serious double standard. A woman who wears a spaghetti shoulder strap gets disqualified because BYU maintains a strict moral code despite the world's views, and yet two guys can wrap their arms around each other, dip and sway, gyrate their hips in synchronicity, place their hand anywhere on each other but "there", and dance cheek to cheek and crotch to crotch with nary a word said? Are you freaking kidding me?! I am absolutely SHOCKED by this decision. What happened to standing for truth and right no matter the consequence? Really? So you can't host the professional national championship anymore? Boo-hoo! Do you stand for God and His truths no matter the consequence or do you cave for the world because of the world?! A friend suggested that maybe BYU was contractually obligated to host until a certain time, and thereby contractually obligated to comply. The article didn't sound like that was the case to me. They might be obligated to follow the rules if they host, but required to continue hosting?? And if they don't, or don't follow the rules, and they get sued, and lose millions...are we really not willing to stand for what's right at any cost? I cannot believe it! I'm honestly stunned. Alright...that's my two cents. I'm out of here again. I probably shouldn't have posted, in that Third Hour is still allowing juvenile progressively offensive articles published on their site, and I'm not going to stick around posting while that's the case. But I do read the threads often. However, this one has been on my mind for the few days since the news broke and really bugging me, so I needed to vent a bit. But I'm done now. Someone should start a thread (unless I missed it) on the banning of gay conversion therapy in Utah too. Less offensive than this, imo, but the way it's being reported and handled, still....maybe worth a discussion. I will note that I'm going to post one other update in a few days or so with some news. But otherwise, don't expect me to actively reply. Edit: One other point I forgot to mention: What about cross-dressing? If two men are dancing together does one of them get to wear a dress? Does that dress have to also come to the man's mid thigh, etc? Can BYU discriminate against men dancing in the women's role in women's clothing, or is that something they're caving on too?

Some years ago, I wrote a short synopsis of the Book of Mormon for @Sunday21. To my surprise and satisfaction, several people found it useful. I have since thought it might be a useful jumping-off point for others such as my youngest, who will soon be 14 and might appreciate a 10,000-foot view of things. So I copied it out, put it in a Google doc, and edited it some. It is nothing like official, of course, and contains some of my own interpretations, doubtless along with some errors. But for whatever it's worth to anyone, here's a link. The Book of Mormon made understandable (overview)

For me it's orthogonal. BYU should have taken a moral stand for the reasons already covered by other posters. Separately, I question the NDCA's decision to open it up. My preference would be if NDCA was to open it up, it create a separate dance category to allow for same-sex categories. It's similar to the creation of new music genres, but note that by listing them as a separate genre they are being categorized and classified as different. Both cha cha and foxtrot can be danced to a 4/4 beat, but only one is allowed in International Ballroom and the other exclusively in International Latin. The change allows for enough differences that they should be judged separately.

I'm glad @The Folk Prophet weighed in since I thought of him immediately when I saw the OP (I also thought of him when Cats came out, I can't count the number of times he's seen it). I agree with others that I wish BYU had taken a stand and not hosted. My thoughts on this are larger than BYU. Ballroom dance as sport and art comes out of longstanding tradition and culture. The Tribune makes it clear that the professed purpose of this change is to allow gays to compete in a way comfortable to them, but inadvertently makes an argument for the core purpose. Ballroom dance has rigid gender roles and (as TFP mentioned) this will destroy them. TFP called out the costuming question, but additionally we have the issue of who leads. If I watch a couple perform, I know immediately who will hold his hand up and who will twirl. This change allows for more artistic creativity where a couple can transition the lead during a move, coming out with the other partner leading. The sort of changes this opens up can be creative, it can be artistic, but it is not traditional ballroom dancing. Summoning my inner Len Goodman, it's "too much razzmatazz for my taste."

Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. My prediction: The winners will trend toward homosexual male couples, as the benefits of upper-body strength for showy lifts and such become more common. Time for BYU to start a heterosexual-couples-dancing-only club. Even if they're the only members.

Love it or hate it, it's news. I figure it's worth people at least knowing about, if not talking about. As usual, the Deseret News and Tribune have different takes on the same story. DesNews article Tribune article I do know that BYU is quite well known across the nation for their Ballroom Dancing competitions - it's absolutely not an LDS-only sort of event.

So, the Lord doesn't limit blessings. Elder Uchdorf had an object lesson on this that is great - Blessings is like rain pouring down from heaven. It is pouring, it is there, it is available to EVERYBODY. But to receive the blessing, a person has to choose to stand under the pouring skies and get wet. Unfortunately, some people have umbrellas or have a roof over their heads so they didn't receive the blessings. The law of the fast has specific blessings. If you can't fast, there's a roof over your head. The only way you can receive those promised blessings that is ONLY available by keeping the law of the fast is by fasting. Salvation is not predicated upon every single person receiving every single available blessing pouring down from the skies. Mortal existence means - we are strapped with certain mortal conditions that prevent us from receiving certain blessings. But the promise is sure - if we but take up the yoke and Follow Him, we will get there.

I'm with estradling... Disengage! Disengage! This is supposed to be a meme but I can't find it... could you believe that?

A shill? Nah, I wouldn't say that. What's really happened is that the Republican party has made it way too easy for CNN to generate headlines, and they weren't able to resist turning towards sensationalism every time republicans did something controversial. I really loathe bipartisanism. It's constantly pressuring you to be either one side or the other with no in-between. Why can't anyone else see that the devil is obviously behind all this?

I just read over some of the rules. My reading of this is that the leader has to stay leader for the duration of the competition, and the follower has to stay the follower throughout the competition. I think just by allowing the same-sex partners the boundaries will be pushed and it will not remain this way. And just to add to the doom and gloom, NDCA can't very well allow same-sex partners to change without allowing traditional couples the same advantage. TFP won't have to worry about cross-dressers this year, but I think this is going to be pushed. For starters, 2 ladies dancing in ball gowns will have a disadvantage to 2 men dancing in tail suits who will have a disadvantage to a tail suit/ballgown couple. A twirl with tails just isn't as eye-popping as a traditional gown, and fancy footwork can be easily lost in 2 layers of ballgown.

So the state of salvation of loved ones doesn't count as "conditions and relationships"? What, exactly, did you think that Elder Oaks' example was talking about?

I was quoting President Oaks' first General Conference talk last October, where he told of a Church leader responsing to a concern very much like yours. I'm sorry u didn't get that. Maybe you u should relisten to General Conference.

Personally I call it quits at that point. I have better things to do then be slandered and misrepresented. Sad thing is... Both parties liked my post.. which lead me to think that both understood it.. Yet later actions seem to counter indicate that for one of the parties in question

It appears not

Just pointing out the obvious: your dance partner and who you're with romantically are usually different people. By default, most people are dancing with folks they are not romatically involved with and likely not even attracted to.

@Vort the document is quite impressive - thanks. However, I would bring to light a few things that I believe has input. #1. I believe there is revelation that is more accurate or closer to what we should understand concerning these things - This is the temple endowment. It is somewhat unfortunate that we cannot sit in the temple with a copy of your Google docs outline to make comparisons. Because of my background in science I have been somewhat troubled with days (or times) 3 and 4 and felt they were backwards. I agree with our prophets that the temple is a place of higher learning. One must go to the temple often to realize contributions from temple revelations. #2. I find it interesting and telling that Biblical revelations of the plan of salvation begins with what is called the Creation. However, we know that an understanding of a pre-existence and a counsel that took place there is critical to understanding the plan of salvation. #3. Most Christians understand the phrase "In the beginning" to mean at the start of existence and time. I was told by a Rabbi that a better translation from the ancient Hebrew should be "When G-d first established his covenant with man". The Christian interpretation tends to champion the thought that G-d is not a creature of this universe space-time. The ancient Hebrew on the other hand seem to point to something quite different and may not be related to the origins of our understanding of our space-time universe. #4. There are references to light and darkness in the creation narrative. I am not convinced that the symbolic reference to light and darkness is a corresponding reference to electromagnetic radiation and the absents of it. I am inclined to think the symbolic reference to light is a reference to the intelligence of G-d - which is a knowledge that light is a knowledge of Good and the Darkness is a knowledge of Evil and the separation of light from darkness is the understanding of the difference between good and evil. With this understanding one can also realize a Chiastic structure within the presentations of the plan of salvation. That the plan of salvation begins and ends with the establishment and separation of light and darkness - or good and evil. The Traveler

I think the DNC is not so happy with Sanders. I think there are many that would prefer to have him as a token to the more socialistic wing of the party and then ignore him than to have him ever win the nomination. There has been some speculation (and some of these conspiracy theories are probably pretty ridiculous) that this entire Impeachment hearing is not actually against Trump, but a targeted way to ensure Bernie does not do as well against Biden (as ridiculous as that sounds). The Senate hearings being designed to keep the Senators busy (so I suppose that also includes Warren) while Biden continues to campaign. Thus, they can hopefully keep Bernie Sanders busy while Biden builds up his base. I'm not sure how deep it goes, but even among the more moderate Democrats there is a feeling of deep corruption currently within the Democrat party. There is a bright side to this for Conservatives. Much of the Democrat party is not in line with Bernie Sanders opinions. If he were elected, even if the Democrats win by a landslide and somehow eventually have 2/3 of both the House and the Senate...it would as if he were of a different party from them in getting anything passed. He has big ideas, but the probability of most of them getting through Congress, even if controlled completely by the Democrats, are very little. If you want a stalemated government and had to vote for a Democrat nominee, Sanders is probably a better bet than any of the others. That does not mean Sanders wouldn't try though. He'd try anything and everything he could. I'm not sure if it will be a repeat of 2016 or not. I think there is a great deal of unhappy people among the Democrats at how the Democrat party handled 2016 and Sanders specifically. It may repeat itself, but it probably won't be as blatant this time around. To be honest, I think Biden is still going to be the frontrunner with Bernie Sanders as a close second...though Sanders is supposedly doing very well among the early states looking to do their primaries. We'll see what happens. Warren could surprise us all still and be the next up and coming winner. I think the establishment would prefer Biden or Warren over Bernie Sanders any day. I think the question I'm looking at is if Biden gets the nomination, who he'll select as a Vice President running mate. I think a choice of Warren would be a wise one from him, but if he selected Bernie Sanders he might gain more overall. (then again, he could throw tradition completely to the wind and select Romney. I think Biden and Romney would get along well together, they have very similar views in my opinion, but by selecting Romney he'd throw a LOT of Republicans into a tizzy over what to do next in their votes. If Romney actually accepted that...I think Biden would win as it would divide the Republican party just enough so that Trump would not be able to hope to win the election).

I have yet to meet a corrupt politician that will stop being corrupt because "they have enough money". How many houses do you think a politician will own before he says "I have enough". 6 obviously isn't. So no. I'm not paying a politician from my hard-eared money more than what the work is worth. I'm not giving him more of my hard-earned money that I need to feed my children so he will stop stealing. That's a silly pursuit. People who desire to steal will steal. The way you stop people from stealing is not to give them money but to teach them not to steal.

Well she finally talked to him. He was "nice and normal" to her as she put it. She says she's glad I encouraged her to talk to him- break the ice, shrink the elephant in the room. That may be the end of it. But at least it would be closure for her rather than him just fading away and always wondering what happened to him. The ball is squarely in his court if anything more is going to happen. I can pray my guts out, and even if it's a relationship the Lord would approve of, the guy still has his agency. It's not up to me to get inspiration on who she should end up with. but I can and do get inspiration on how to urge my children forward. Some need a little urging. Others not!!

He SMILED! How DARE he! (Seriously. That was his crime. He smiled. A white guy smiled. No wonder everyone got upset.)

It could be. Something I thought of previously and have considered more strongly more recently, though it does not exactly conjoin with current church teachings, is in relation to the original ideas of the curse of dark skin. In this, if we look at the peoples of the African Continent comparatively to those of Northern Europe we find that they have various differences. Genetically we are told via evolution and science that they do not really share a common ancestor since before Biblical times or several thousand years prior to Biblical events. DNA now seems to verify some of this. Other than when they met and mixed together later, the actual genes and DNA show that they diverged from each other long ago. How is this possible if we believe in a Flood that happened more recently? Is it possible that with the cursing came an actual change in the DNA of those peoples? A change of genetics or the actual DNA of a group of people to make them different and stand out in a different manner than the rest of the family would seem to be an obvious way of creating a mark that others could easily recognize physically. Relating this to the Book of Mormon we also find an oddity. People who mixed together and grew white, would change later on and knew from whom their ancestry was. They still knew if they were true Lamanites...or in the case of later prophets...Nephites or his descendants. This could be that there were literal genetic differences among them as well, and that the cursing that afflicted Laman and Lemuel actually created a genetic change in their DNA. This then would also explain some of the things we've seen with DNA recently in our tests comparative to those of the tribe of Judah (of course, it should also be pointed out that we may be looking at the wrong identifiers in the DNA. If they were of different tribes, and we believe that some of the peoples of Europe were of the various tribes of Israel, than it would reason that the identifiers of Hebrew vs. that of being a member of Judah or Levi would be found in other markers that are common between Europeans and Jews or something along those lines). If the mark was a true physical change, than something could have been changed genetically, meaning DNA would be different as well to a degree. Just a thought, though absolutely NOT a popular one in this day and time in the Church. It is ironic then that we overlooked this type of idea in our eagerness to promote the idea, even in the last century, that the Lamanites were the same in every way to the Nephites and those of the tribe of Judah (or that all the Hebrews would share the same genetics as those who were of the tribe of Judah) without the possibility of a genetic change to create the mark. If so, perhaps we would have looked beyond DNA markers to connect the tribe of Judah to the remnants of the Lamanites in such haste, (though the study was quite limited) and be dismayed when such markers did not seem to indicate a connection between the two.

Can anyone spot the irony here?