hordak
-
Posts
1923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hordak
-
-
I was talking to an ex-NFL player a few months ago and was saying how I really didn't want my son to be playing soccer. I wanted him to be in football and that no matter what I said, he wouldn't change his mind. So the ex-NFL guy told me that 1) There's nothing wrong with soccer and 2) I need to stop living my life through my son. Now me and my ex are those parents who teaches their children independence possibly to a fault. I am the last person on earth, so I thought, to be living my life through my boy. But I was caught up in it. Guilty. It was so easy to fall into it's scary.
But the difference between me and those nut's on that show is that when having the truth of the matter being thrown into my face, I reacted to change it. I became more supportive of his soccer and signed him up at the local "Y" where they have soccer leagues. They also have football leagues but that's not the point
The point is that it's easy to fall into the living by proxy trap. It's easy to manipulate our children to do our wishes. It's easy to say that "I know what's best for them so they will do what I want them to do" with a total disregard of not only what they want, but what is appropriate, both morally and to the child's personality. I learned a big lesson with my son.
What I find funny is that I was that way with only my boy. My girls, I let them find their own interests. One is huge on the clarinet. I dislike the clarinet but she dived right into it becoming a member of her schools honor band and orchestra within six months. Another daughter loves to sing, also becoming a member of the schools honor choir within six months. My oldest is a writer, who is now in college and on her fifth novel. Our youngest daughter still remains to be seen. She has aspergers. We're still trying to see where her talents lie, other than having a frigg'n photographic memory for which we learned very, very quickly to be careful what we promise.
So while I have a total disdain for those creeps on that stupid show, I do believe that we can all take it and do some self evaluation and see if any of us, to some degree, are guilty of the same behavior. I bet we are, but we're with it enough as parents to enact changes within ourselves. I just hope those parents snap out of it and change.
It's cool that you recognize that. Plus football is the most overrated sport (Taking turns and stopping play every 10 seconds i just don't get it:confused:) and he should play a real one like Hockey:D.
My boy loves golf, so much so that he used his hockey sticks like golf clubs, til we got him a pair and he actually watches it on tv. He will change it from cartoons to watch a game of golf:huh:
O well what can you do?
I support him and try to learn the game.
Think your right though, lot of it is trying to live through the kids.
-
I don't think you are being too harsh at all Elphie. Those were my thoughts as well. I wanted to hear what others thought of it.
I was slightly shocked when the mother made the comment..if her daughter had been 10 she would have thought it inappropriate...but it's okay at 2 years old?
Then again I'm looking at this from an LDS perspective. We teach or try to teach modesty. We try to teach them to dress and act in ways that are appropriate. Here we have someone that's saying, it's okay at 2 years old because it's funny. Hogwash.
Think the mother is looking at it wrong.
I will not buy my my daughter a 2 piece swimsuit at 5 because i don't want her wearing one at 10.
It funny because i don't "agree" with the church's/ cultures stance on modesty. In the fact i don't think adults should be looking a for the strength of the youth for guidelines. Adults are adults and kids are kids. I don't think a woman not dressing like shes wearing garments is "walking porn" as i have heard some members say. However when it comes to children i'm a modesty Nazi and it makes me sick to see many in our society trying to make children grow up faster then they should.
-
I heard people talk about Joseph Smith's teaching of God once being a mortal man on another planet but I never found any information on that or understood where our beliefs come from him being the supreme creator and also a mortal?
LDS.org says nothing about God being a man on another planet so if Joseph Smith really did teach that I don't understand why.
Someone missed Gospel principles
Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).
People put different emphasis in it. Either "once a man like us" or on "same as Jesus Christ"
as to whether or not he was "mortal" (of course Jesus was technically mortal or he couldn't give his life for man kind).
But yes him being a man, on an earth is in the principals manual.
-
What man in their right mind would want to take on more than one wife when about 50% of us can't even keep one marriage together?
#1 cause of divorce. Financial issues. Having more bread winners in the family makes money less of a burden.
# 2 adultery men or women ( i believe in equality) having emotional/sexual attraction to multiple people (much more common then same sex attraction) cheat. They "have to" in a society that only recognizes 2 party marriages. In a culture that recognize this they can bring another spouse into the family, giving less incentive to stray.
I would bet that adultery is less common in polygamous unions (assuming you count other spouses as spouses) then in traditional marriages.
Please note the quotes around have to.
-
When I first saw the title of this thread I thought I read Potential Legalization of Marijuana.
Now that topic has momentum.
me too
-
i think the "mistakes" (depending on what particular thing you are referring to) of past Prophets are a way to teach current and future members the importance of personal revelation and confirmation by the Holy Ghost.
In fact Brigham Young "taught" this, it is in the Journals of discourse.
Don't have the direct quote but he mentions how he is afraid for the saints who would follow the leaders blindly and not seek the truth for themselves through the Holy Ghost.
-
I don't know if the money is the issue, i mean it is for the people losing it but, the church didn't lose a dime when wikileaks released the Church handbook of instructions but they enforced their intellectual property rights regardless. I'm willing to bet it is a mirror of the situation and just as most kids downloading the next big hit, wouldn't buy it if they could not get it free off the web, most people downloading the CHI from wikileaks had little interest in becoming a Bishop.
If i borrow (aka steal) your car while you are sleeping and return it in the morning, you don't "lose" out. But it is still wrong.
-
consult an attorney.
That said i believe you can be fired for anything, provided it's not protected (race religion gender etc.)
But no suing is not against the church rules
-
I imagine it was very much like Facebook.
People repeatedly annoying you asking for help on their farm when the reason for being there is to see how their lives are, while secretly hoping your vacation pics from Hawaii are really impressing them?
Don't want to go go back;)
:D -
Depends on the Bishop.
I might be down playing the severity of excommunication but i have seen a few threads on this topic (i've committed sin x, what will happen if i go back?)
If exed you will...
lose the right to use the Priesthood, if an ordained male,
Lose the right to take sacrament, and renew baptismal covenants (lose those convents?)
lose the right to pray at meetings
If you don't go to church you...
lose the opportunity use the Priesthood, if an ordained male,
Lose the opportunity to take sacrament, and renew baptismal covenants
lose the opportunity to pray at meetings
If you come back as an exed member you will be asked...
to read scriptures,
to pray,
to show faith,
to repent of sins
to avoid new sins
to become a better person.
Members in good standing are asked...
to read scriptures,
to pray,
to show faith,
to repent of sins
so avoid new sins
to become a better person.
Essentially not coming back is "excommunicating" yourself.
-
I'm typically against censorship but what age group is the book for?
When i was in school our teacher had us read this old book Southtown. The thing would literally fall apart while turning the page because it's last printing was in 40s or 50s IIRC.
He saved it for his classes to read because, in his view, it was a great piece on slavery/ social and racial issues in the south even though it was full of non PC talk.
However to be honest us 5th graders were more excited to get away with the occasion cuss word and dropping the N word in class during group reading without trouble then getting into the themes of the story.
So while with older mature students you might be able to use this a a discussion starter on the topic of views held in the past, the language might be counterproductive younger ones.
And if changing some "offensive" (parts) words is the only way to share these themes with a younger crowd it could be a good thing.
After all...
Jesus bleeding from every pore in the garden, or being stabbed in the side by a spear, might be more accurate to the scriptures, say more about the time suffering etc., but in primary it's more beneficial to just say " He died for our sins", so you're not off topic discussing bandage and medical technology of the day.
So if it is PC run amuck i would say it's wrong. If it is the "taming" of the story/ language to introduces it to readers who wouldn't normally read it/ learn from it because of it's harshness , then it's no different then what "we" do with the scriptures. No different then having Larry, from veggie tales, lusting after a rubber duck instead of the more accurate, but to harsh for most kids, naked women.
-
(Bold added in the quote above by me).
Interestingly (without going back and reading every word) we generally talk of porn in relation to men. I know from experience with women friends, pal's partners, etc., that women are in general very much into porn too. They just keep it under wraps, like many other things. But stand near an Anne Summers shop and count the genders...
I used him, because my example was a he. But yes it is not unique to men.
-
Not trying to defend porn but i take issue the idea one can sin against a future spouse who may or may not come along.
Can looking at porn lead to unrealistic expectations that can't be meet or kept up in the real world as time goes on? Yes. But so can dating.
An 18 year old get's "hooked" on porn.He loves they the way it makes him feel. At 20 he kicks the habit and get's married. 10 years later he wakes up one morning to discover his hot svelt 20 year old wife has turned into a mother of 4 with the limitations physically that come with it. The physical perfection he put a lot of stock in is no more.
An 18 year old girl goes to BYU. Return missionaries are throwing themselves at her, going out on fun dates 5 nights a week. She loves the the way it makes her feel. At 20 she culls the herd and get's married. 10 years later
she wakes up to discover her fun adventurous 20 year old husband has turned into a father of 4 with the financial limitations that come with it. The adventure and disposable income needed to support it she put so much stock in is gone.
What is the difference?
Viewing porn may have an effect, (even a negative one) on his future relationships, and family life. So might a million other things.
As a youth i was "commanded" to study hard and get good grades. I didn't. This hurt me, and my parent's the law givers. It also affects my family today. Had i done this i might have gotten a full ride to U of M, then Harvard Law, which would make my families financial situation better. Just because my actions affect them doesn't mean i wronged them.
Was cutting class a "sin" against my wife because the actions would "negatively" affect her 10 years later?
-
So, I apparently didn't pay attention to the curriculum changes for 2011 and am only now finding it interesting that we're covering Gospel Principles again this year as our curriculum for the third hour Priesthood & Relief Society classes. Does anyone else see a message in that? I mean, it's been several years now since the "Teachings of the Prophets" manuals started coming out, and I could have sworn that the message given to us back then was that the Church was going to go through all the prophets to the present day with this curriculum approach.
Well, we didn't even come close to covering all the modern day prophets and now we're starting year two of Gospel Principles. Personally, I think this may not be the best of signs for us members. Don't get me wrong... studying the principles of the Gospel, in my opinion is a super good thing. Heck, if given the choice, I often attend the gospel principles class over gospel doctrine during Sunday School. But I think it says something about the membership as a whole that we're not embracing the basics; the fundamentals; the true heart and soul of the Gospel. And because we are not, our leaders have put them right in front of us again this year.
A callout to the forum... what are some of your thoughts around the third hour curriculum choice for 2011?
I don't want to sound like i'm downplaying the importance of the Prophets, but i don't think there is enough to cover. Kind of like US Presidents , we really study the founding, and the current, along with important things along the way, but anyone know what Millard Fillmore did during his presidency?
Prophets teach and elaborate on the basics, for the time period in which they are in (IMO) so Joseph Smiths teaching, like the founding fathers teachings are more important to use then George Alberts Smith or US President Fillmore. Like wise President Monson's teachings and US President Obama's views/teachings will shape our world more then John Taylor or Martin Van Buren. Much of what was gone through, Edmonton tucker act with John Taylor and dealing with the Native Americans for Van Buren, has "little" relevance to today's Saint or US Citizen.
-
I am Unitarian. Which basically loves all versions of faith. And yet, as I explore, I feel the most to LDS. I have read books for Joseph, against Joseph and so forth. It still works for me. Bottom line. It all still falls together for me. But I am married to a man who will not explore conversion with me. Imagine not being able to pray with your spouse. It's a bummer.
I'm confused.
What does you, changing your faith, have to do with marrying outside your faith?
If the problem is you don't share the same beliefs, now that you, are changing, better advice would be don't marry someone who will be unwilling to convert to a faith you may be interest in in the future.
I don't mean to sound overly harsh but if you're changing, particularly on something as personal as faith, and your husband is not "keeping up" then you need to find a way to deal with it. It's not his fault that you are changing.
Imagine if one day your husband decided to become a vegan. Sure there needs to be some respect for his new beliefs, but he wouldn't he have the right to be mad at you because after x years of marriage together, living your life a certain way, you will not up and change for him.
After all. One of the most important things in marriage is understanding that you cannot change someone.
-
I have never understood the whole % of the bill idea.
I mean i take the kids out for lunch, get them the kids meals ,grab something light like a sandwich spend $20-$25.
The kids spill their milk, the baby is tossing food on the floor, drawing on the table with a crayon on of the older kids slipped her, she pulls and dumps the nearest plate on the floor
while i'm helping the kids with their coats. The place looks like a war zone when we leave.
At 20% that's a $5
Take my wife out for dinner, we get steak and ribs, order some foo-foo drinks (which cost just as much without the booze most times) and get dessert. Total $40-$45
We don't leave a mess, we are respectful of our servers,
At 20% that's $9.
The price of the food doesn't make it more work to bring out any more difficult and in fact the server/busboy who have to work harder get payed less?
I tip well, but it is always based on the service never the price. I'll spend $12 on pizza and give $6 if it comes fast.
-
Done it all.
I gave up my career for my wife/ kids.
I have moved all over the country, soon to be world, for her career.
When she does her "residency" it's typical in another country where people want to kill her.
There are many others in my same situation.
It doesn't work out for them all, but it's been mostly good to us, though certainly hard at times.
-
What does ADHD have to do with anything?
Caffeine being a mild stimulant can be used to treat ADD/ADHD instead of using the stronger Amphetamine or methylphenidate that is often prescribed.
-
-
Have to go with Anatess on this.
Could God give an individual a lesser law to follow based on their needs, desires, limits etc. when there is a higher one available?
Sure. He did it to an entire nation/people during the Exodus.
Exodus 32–34. Moses receives stone tablets containing instructions from the Lord but breaks the tablets when he returns from Sinai and sees the people worshiping a golden calf (31:18; 32:1–24). The Lord takes the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Israel and gives them a lesser law, the law of Moses (Joseph Smith Translation, Exodus 34:1–2). Moses hews new tablets of stone to replace those that he has broken, but the new tablets do not include “the words of the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood” (34:1–5; Joseph Smith Translation, Deuteronomy 10:2). The people covenant to obey the law of Moses (34:10–35).
-
The fact that a horrible outcome isn't always the result, is sufficient justification to not be against something? Does that hold true for other things like espionage and child pornography? Those things don't always end up with a universal situation which applies to everyone who does it either.
LM
On the flip side you know the fact that although a horrible outcome is sometime the result, it is not sufficient justification to be against something.
You wouldn't hold that to be true for other things like gun ownership and motorcycles would you? Those things don't always end up with a universal situation which applies to everyone who does it either and you would take that into consideration, in the same way Mute is looking at this issue.
What Mute is saying is that premarital sex (from a secular perspective) might have risk, but the fact that it's misused and ends up bad for some doesn't mean it is wrong in the same way in which you or i might defend the right to gun ownership.
That being said OP making decisions based on other life is not a good idea. Bill Gates and Steve Zuckerburg make more in a month then i will see in a year. They both dropped out of college, and are doing great. However i doubt you will find many who would advocate, skipping out on the college education because it worked for them.
-
I know for some I've talked to it's based on the Law of Chastity. Much harder to break the law if you meet, and get married quickly rather than drawing it out. .
Think there is some truth to this. But i know some who had no issues breaking the law of chastity and still had a very short courtship.
I think the important thing is not so much the length but getting past the "honeymoon" stage. The infatuation when nothing the other does can be wrong.Need to get to the point when you can accept/embrace/ or at least tolerate
the faults of the other and still want to spend life with them. For some that may take years, for others mere months. -
First, I have no statistics on how often the following is a problem. I just like to read soldier’s personal stories, and have read of circumstances like the following throughout the years.
The problem is not with the official policies of the government regarding a soldier’s children; rather, it occurs at a much lower level--the everyday banter that goes on between soldiers, including discussions about their respective families.
In any social group there are always questions like : “Are you married? Divorced?“ and “Do you have children,“ etc. Those questions lead to other questions, and an especially dangerous one to gay soldiers is “Who takes care of your children?“ The gay soldier could not tell the truth, so often had to substitute "he" for "she," or vice versa, in order to maintain the facade, and this was very stressful for them as they lived in constant fear they would slip up and be discovered.
Other gay people chose not to acknowledge they had children at all, even to the government, to avoid having to answer the very normal and mundane questions people are always asked.
One of the most heartbreaking stories I read was of a soldier who had not told the government about her children. Her partner was struck with cancer, and was too sick to take care of the children. The soldier had to address this and find someone else to take care of them. Given she was in Iraq, it was impossible for her to do so without being observed, and her fellow soldiers were shocked to hear she even had children. In response to the questions and concerns of her fellow soldiers, she told a made-up story, but it was so full of holes it generated even more questions, and, under horrible pressure, finally she just admitted she was gay. Her supervisor (is that the right word?) discovered it, and had no choice but to report her. She was discharged.
It was not as if anyone was interrogating her about it--it was genuine concern and curiosity. But the pressure of having to constantly lie, combined with the pressure of her great fear for her partner and children, was just to much for her, and she cracked.
Elphaba
I never thought of the social aspect, to be honest i was never brought home to work or work to home. I recall my shop chief pulled my aside one day and said.
"hey i heard you got married why didn't you tell me?"
"Well sir, it has nothing to do with keeping airplanes flying"
But i can see your point with the partners, though not the children.
I can't figure out what you're saying here. Would you please clarify?
I'm referring to benefits. It's really a hollow victory as far as that is concerned. Socially it might help them, as you mentioned but legally it doesn't do any favors. A gay couple who shares a life together, will be treated like every other boyfriend girlfriend. Having a child or children together will be in the same boat as another non married couple that shares kids.
Let say Steve has a child from a previous relationship. The mother is completely out of the picture and his partner Adam want's to adopt him (I don't know if gays can do this but i got a buddy who had a few dads, His biological father, not in picture, and his adopted dad who was his mothers 2nd husband, then later a step dad). Since they are not married i think this would be harder, not only legally, for the bio dad Steve (and the mother who might be giving up the rights) but it might be hard to share legal rights emotionally without that legal commitment.
In my friends case i don't think his mother, or his bio dad, would have let the adoption take place if the second dad was just a boyfriend.
(hope that makes sense)
Plus only legal spouses get benefits. So if Steve gets orders to go to Germany for 4 years Adam needs to get his crap together because Steve can't afford to support 2 households and Adam isn't coming with.And now they need to figure out who the child will live with all this time.
This problem would exist with or without DADT but like i said it's kind of a hollow victory.
(and i like to point out it was a Liberal president who signed into law a bill that has federal law only recognizing 1 man 1 women marriages:p;) )
-
10% unemployment and this gets attention in Congress. What a joke. (sorry gay LDS.Net members) Congress is a miserable sham. Uggh.
You act surprised? I'm "young" but from what i have seen going after the hot button, emotionally charged issues rather then the tough ones that need to be fixed is par for the course.
I mean Row vs wade was decided in the 70's but it still seems to come up in the campaigns every year. Emotional issues drive votes. Solutions to "real problems" (not implying these others are not real issues) hard problems that need fixing now, not so much.
Warm/Hot Drinks
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Seconded. It's like asking why Jews don't eat bacon, the most delicious food God has given man?