Fiannan
-
Posts
1795 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Fiannan
-
-
The first commandment given to Adam and Eve in their mortal state was to mate and have children (Gen. 1:28). After the flood Noah's family had this reiterated. In Romans 1 homosexuality is linked to the abandonment of family duties (reproduction).
Perhaps this is why homosexuality sticks out when dealing with the factors aligned against the traditional family unit. It may be the ultimate way of saying to God that you reject the duties of reproducing your family line as well as saying, in the context of those who believe in a pre-existence, that you are unwilling to assist in the shared human responsibility of bringing your fellow brotehrs and sisters to earth.
Yeah, I know, some will say that some homosexuals have kids now but the vast majority don't and the ones who do need either a heterosexual couple to produce a kid or the assistance of medical technology to allow for impregnation. However, in the general sense homosexuality kinda throws a wrench into the whole circle of life thing so that's why people tend to look upon it as a greater sin than pre-marital heterosexual sex or even extra-marital sex.
-
Just a thought, Facebook has the right to use or store any pictures that are posted on its site. Pictures that are a bit revealing can come back to haunt someone in the future.
That being said perhaps context is important. If you are at the beach and someone takes a picture of you in a swim suit perhaps that is more tricky. If you happen to be into Latin style cancing some of the outfits are a bit revealing as well, or if you are an LDS figureskater. Yet if you make a point to show off in a semi-sexually provocative manner I think that is bad.
-
I while back I was asked by a young person who knows one of my kids what Mormons believe and how they think. I think I have an answer for her the next time we talk.
Category One -- "Goid said it, I believe it, that settles it" GBIIBITSI personality type.
These are the people who feel questioning is a sin and that if the Church comes out with a pronouncement then the point is settled, no reason for discussion. If a child asks why mom took the three earrings out of her left ear the answer is that now wearing such things is wrong and sinful.
Positive aspects of GBIIBITSI -- person feels confident in their positions and that they are doing what is right.
Negative aspects of GBIIBITSI -- Hard to have a deep conversation with them. Their kids often wind up either becoming just like them or leaving the Church. Usually the family splits (i.e. 6 kids, three go totally inactive, a couple of them become like the parents and one totally becomes permissive.
Category number two -- "I think I need to pray and study" or the ITINTPAS personality type.
These people are almost identical in appearance to the Category Ones but their attitudes are not as fixated at all. They feel that when they hear something they have concerns with then they need to examine the issue very carefully. These can be broken down into two sub-categories -- strong member orthodox or strong member liberalistic.
The first will attempt to find the reasons why a pronouncement is made -- in the earring example they may try to sort out (personally and with kids) why the Church has taken this stand. However, if it doesn't fit their views or insights in regards to whatever they will continue to have the multiple earrings (even if they are temple workers) and they will let their kids get such piercings.
The second will react that they don't want to be controlled and will sort the issue out as well however they will do their best to justify not following lots of stands, but will still be fairly mainstream anyway. They may, just may, get another piercing just to show independence even though they may take them out for Church. Many in Category Two liberalistic may just feel that it isn't worth the effort to "rebel" on this issue.
Positive aspects of ITINTPAS is that they are usually the ones who know scriptures and have studied Church history the most and their kids are generally better behaved and fun to have in classes as they have tons of insights and may even disagree with you.
Negative aspects -- Sometimes their testimonies become suspect by the Category Ones.
Category Three -- "Yeah, I believe, but don't try to rule my life" or YIBBDTTRML personality type.
These people have a testimony but also have a liberalistic approach to what the Church says. They might not even have an earring (male or female) but get a few anyway just to show they can, and get away with it.
Positive aspects -- can be really creative and fun to be with.
Negative aspects -- can justify a whole lot of suspect things.
I would like some feedback on this observation since not only did I get this question a while back but I have been invited to speak to a religion class in a local high school (25 17 year olds) and sometimes youth have the notion all Mormons are the same. I also am contemplating a blog on this subject. So please help out please and help me develop it.
-
Yeah, and some animals kill their young, so uhhhhh ....... I'm just not big into modeling animal behavior and would rather take my pointers on my purpose in life from the scriptures and modern prophets. :) There are lots of similarities to animals and there are lots of differences.
Nobody said people should act like animals -- the point is that much of our behavior is actually based on biology and once we recognize that, and combine it with our understanding of scripture, then we are more able to come to gripes with the creation -- both around us as well as inside us.
-
I think I was about nine when my primary teacher put a little ball of hamburger into a bowl of Coke, with the idea being the Coke would eat up the hamburger and to show us what it did to our stomach.
My teacher was mortified nothing happened. You'd think she would have least done a run through.
Elphaba
Mythbusters did something similar to destroy the myth that a nail in Coke will disolve in any way.
Also, moderate caffeine use is okay -- check the article on energy drinks in this month's Ensign.
-
MorningStar, animals eat, we eat...animals go through breeding cycles, humans go through breeding cycles...animals care for their young, humans care for their young...
Now there are two ways you can look at this and they are either that we share common ancestors or that we share a common designer. I believe the latter. The big difference is that we have a soul that is capable of abstract choice and creativity rather than pure instinct.
We should not discount our biological urges or design. There has to be a reason humans are designed the way they are and yes we can speculate on the reasons but should not pretend we are not similar to animals in many ways. To see that the extended family model benefits the aged as well as the young is something our ancestors would have said was self evident. Many American Indians said that our responsibilites in the family unit extend five generations. That fits what I am saying quite well I believe.
-
Interesting since there are Muslims who have immigrated to Canada that want Canada to allow them to live under Sharia law and be able to practice their faith and marriage customs and not be subjected to Canadian law.
-
Fiannan, if menopause signals a woman is supposed to start raising her grandchildren, what does it mean when a man becomes impotent? Does the same standard apply? Perhaps we should find a medication to reverse menopause since men have viagra. My feeling is that just because an old man can still father babies doesn't mean he should.
Don't gripe at me for the laws of biology.
In much of Europe, children are divided into programs of study in high school depending on their interests and aptitudes. You can be placed in a natural science tracking category in which most of your classes will be math and science oriented or you can be placed in a social science category where most of your classwork is humanities oriented.
I have joked that there may be an easy way to see if your child (as young as 6) will be an N student or an S student. Show them an animal program on Discovery where a lion chases down, kils and eats a cute baby gazelle. Observe what your child says -- if they get mad that the cameraman didn't do something to save the gazelle or that the lion was really mean then they are likely to grow up to be a social science student. If they find the laws of nature interesting and observe that the lion now can feed her cubs then they are likely to become natural science students.
Again, who was the author of the laws of biology?
-
You really will look for any justification for polygamy won't you?
Well, if polygamy is immoral then that would make the religion of Judaism questionable for condoning it (as well as the prophets practicing it) as well as sects that sprang out of Judaism -- namely Christianity and Islam. At least the Muslims are more in touch with the origins of their religion.
In fairness to the Jews a rabinical councel in Europe asked Jews not to practice polygamy several centuries ago for fear of persecution from Christians.
The main point here is that grandparent's main biological function is to continue to work to assist their offspring in rearing of children so as to insure more of their genes are passed on. Simple biology. In traditional society the fact that males retain their reproductive capabilities implies that they could also take additional wives as this meant stronger males would pass on their genes and the genetic health of the society would be enhanced. Again, simple biology.
Interesting how biology and religion can work together so many times.
-
Testosterone poisoning is a subject for another thread.
applepansy
What the heck is that?
-
I believe the same series or one similar covered the male menopause wasn;t it presented by Robert Winston, he certainly did one on the male menopause.
-Charley
Depends. So-called male menopause is more a psychological or behavior (not biological) construct although psychology can have a huge effect on psysiology.
From what I have read males who go through a psychological period that can be associated with the mid-life crisis (trying to regain youth or trying to change direction in life) do so when their wives end their reproductive cycle. Evolutionary psychology would say this is an attempt not to recapture youth but to appeal to younger partners. So one might expect someone like Congressman Dennis Kucinich who is 62 (and married to a woman who is 31) not to go through such a state for more than 15 or 20 years while perhaps actor Ashton Kuchner who is 30 (and married to a woman who is 46) might go through such a period in the near future -- that is if these theories are correct.
The psychological impact of going through a "change of life" could either cause someone to try to fight or to go with the societal flow and adopt a lifestyle that is more akin to an older person. I personally believe that LDS people set the stage for "midlife" earlier than most people do. My wife and I were watching a movie last might which featured a love triagle between characters played by Jack Nicholson, Keuna Reeves adn Diane Keeton. Reeves is portrayed as a young doctor but when he did the role he was 40 in real life -- an age that most LDS people associate with being an older man and where you are expected to be celebrating your 15+ wedding anniversary. Maybe that's why so many LDS males in their 40s look older as they are already seeing their kids go off on missions and getting married. You choose to see yourself as "maturing" and your body adjusts to that state of being.
-
You forgot elephants.
Fianan, Human females live past their child rearing years for more reasons than to raise more children.
I'm not devaluing the importance of grandparents. Grandparents can teach children many things in ways parents can't. Children also seem to listen to Grandparents more than their parents when they become teenagers. . .not in all cases but more than a few. I love my grandparents and miss them.
My goal in life has been to be a Grandma. I would have skipped the Mom stage if I could have. Just kidding! My point is Grandma gets to have fun with the kids while Mom gets the work.
Seriously though and with concern . . . do you think of other things besides your version of the role of women?
applepansy
Are you sure about the elephants? The documentary series would be wrong then.
Role of women? The purpose was to deal with human biology and culture. In the spirit of equality let's deal with both genders. Females go through menopause and males don't. Why is that? From a biological point alone this would suppose that human males who survive past menopause in their original mate still serve the purpose of defending the tribe and hunting for food for the young. The strongest would then be able to take additional mates (biologically humans would be considered to be moderately polygamist as the larger the male in a species than the female the more mates he would be expected to get and since human males are slightly larger than close genetic females then one would expect the older male to take one or two additional wives if he was capable of it -- which is what we witness in most traditional societies). The "midlife crisis" in the human male is suspected of in reality being the realization (consciously or subconsciously) than his mate is no longer capable of reproducing his genes -- males who display this "crisis" usually do so when their wife reaches menopause -- which may be the reason so many males who are active in the Church get disfellowshipped in their 50s, or divorce and take trophy wives, they may not understand the biology behind such drives and be able to compensate for it.
So what's up with the role of women? Females bear children and males defend the herd and sire offspring based on their strength -- in a more natural biological sense. If anything the male is more expendible as you only need one male for several females to keep the tribe functioning while females are more valuable biologically and thus are given bodies better able to fight disease and the elements than men are blessed with.
Just biology -- yet aren't we supposed to gain insight about the creation by studying the world around us, and sometimes learning about ourselves in the process?
-
There in lies the problem. Southern baptist ministers have never claimed to speak for God.(at least in the LDS Prophecy sense.) This means that anything preached by a minister (past or present)can be interpreted by member as right or wrong and has know bearing on their "worthiness" If we look back and see the church taught or practiced something that is no longer taught (without a reasonable explanation) it causes many to question new doctrine.
e.g. If Brigham Young , Bruce R. McConkie ,John Taylor,Joesph F Smith,Orson Pratt,Spencer w. Kimball were wrong about blacks ( death for mixing races, Cains curse, less valiant pre life, inferior race,no priesthood etc) none of which taught today(To my knowledge).Then why should members take things like no earrings or tattoos, or vote yes on prop 8 as doctrine?
Actually, that is not exactly what Church leaders taught in essence about blacks. True, they did teach, and I suppose still do, that Ham was cursed and that blacks are descendants of Ham but from my understanding that pre-dates the restoration by centuries. In the Book of Ezra anyone that was not pure Hebrew was cast out of the congregation and many see this as saying races should not mix -- although the reason given by Church leaders for not marrying outside of the races after the revelation for giving blacks the priesthood was that it places a huge burden on the couple from day one. One could note that the priesthood used to only be allowed to be given to those descended of Levi and even Jesus said His earthly mission was intended only for Jews.
As for present teachings one could cite things like birth control as rather confusing for members. In the past leaders (yes, inspired leaders) said that family limitation was a violation of the temple covenant and could jeapordize your place in the next life. Birth control was discouraged as late as the 1990s yet one can see that todays politically correct PR way of dealing with the issue leaves the impression that leaders have changed their mind when in reality what they seem to want is for people to read the real message between the lines.
And judging from how many people in the Church of all ages continue to get body piercings and tatoos and shrug off as relatively unimportant the urgings against it (it is after all pretty unimportnat in the grand scheme of things) maybe LDS people aren't all that different from those who feel that questioning of authority is okay. We just feel you shouldn't question for the sake of questioning -- and yes, LDS people do believe their leaders are inspired, but that they can be human as well and that some ideas (i.e. white shirts for Church occasions) are more a factor of cultural factors.
-
I was just watching my copy of the BBC series "The Human Body" the other day and they were dealing with the scientific view of life (basically that all living creatures have a duty to fulfil to repropagate their genes before they die). Then they dealt with the paradox as to why human females live past their reproductive period -- sometimes half their life extends past menopause. So what was the explaination for this?
Well, if the purpose of life is to reproduce your genes (again, pure Darwinistic biology) then the only logical explaination is that the human female is to assist her offspring in the raising of their children -- thus making life easier for her offpring and enabling them to reproduce at a higher rate.
To support this idea the program noted that humans and pilot whales were the only creatures that the female goes through a menopause. The other interesting characteristic is that they are also the only creatures that the concept of "grandchildren" holds any importance.
When observing pilot whales one finds the older females assist their duaghters in caring for the young. Up until recent times in the western world this was the role of grandparents as well -- not to give presents on birthdays or occasionally babysitting but to be there to instruct the grandchildren, to care for the grandchildren and also assist in everyday family functions until the time of death. This was the extended family -- a concept supported by scripture as well as biology.
One wonders if we will continue our separation from our biological legacy for long. The "nuclear family" is an artificial concept of the industrial age and probably wil fade away in time as it devalues and degregates the older people and puts additional work and responsibilities on the young.
Besides, it's just not natural.
-
I know a few gay people. I don't know anyone who has had 100 partners. The gay people I know may have had several relationships but then again so do the heterosexual ones. I even know church members who have had more than one marriage.
IN college in the late 1980s I had a class where the psychology professor actually discussed research indicating that male homosexuals with up to 500 partners was not uncommon and that most had been with over 100. He was actually using this to illustrate the differences between male and female sexuality to a degree since lesbians generally didn't have that many partners.
The one thing he brought up was just shere mathematics. If a man goes to a gay bar and picks up on just one male a week then that will add up to 52 sexual partners per year. In those days the bathhouses were in full operation and that number might be a half dozen partners per visit. The math isn't that far fetched.
The professor then asked how many partners the average heterosexual male would have if there were bars that were filled with women just wanting one-night stands. I have known guys in the military in Asia where hookers were incredibly cheap. One I knew who was inactive while he was stationed at Suvic Bay made it clear that he'd had many, many partners. He said that at least he used birth control so there wreen't any kids of his in any Phillippino slums. Another guy I knew in college said he might have a couple hundred kids over there.
So the whole numbers thing isn't all that absurd when we examine habits of any promoscuous sub culture.
-
I have visited with several in Prison and in the County Jail and all the inmates I spoke with...always said..not guilty....
OJ Simpson would likely concur -- on all counts.
-
Just tried the Epstein link, no luck connecting.
And I really wanted to know...
Epstein Sexual Orientation Inventory (ESOI)
Yry this one.
-
Hi rameumptom, you got ahold of some bad information. I wouldn't trust that source. bisexual means that a person has attraction to male and female. They can choose a mate that is male or female. They are still monogamous. They choose one mate, not more than one.
Why?
-
Question and off subject.....
Aren't lesbians gay? And what does bi-sexual have to do with it? Is bi-sexuality considered to be an immutable characteristic like being gay supposedly is? Who are they denied the right to marry? And what rights are transgendered persons denied. Once they are sexually reassigned, they can fun ction as a member of their new gender and marry someone of there former sex.....I think.
Polygamy could solve the problem for the women. As for bi-sexuality would anyone care to determine what it really is? Just about every woman I have known is bi in some sort of way if you define it as being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Yet most don't act on it (a growing number are though) so is one bi if they would do it if it wasn't against their religion? Would they be bi if they prefer sex with members of the same gender, or like it as much, but would not want a real relationship (setting up house) with a member of the same gender? How about those who prefer interpersonal relationships with members of the same gender but would not want to get physically intimate?
If someone wants to have some fun there is a sexual orientation test over at robertepstein.com. Strange thing is that I know one woman who took the test and got a 6 (pretty much mid range bisexual) and has had same sex flings (prefers to someday settle down with a guy and, according to her, try to have a dozen kids) but another woman who is about the most conservative woman I know who scored a 7 (if I recall right 0 is totally straight while 12 is totally gay) and is still perplexed as to how she got that.
Sippose both could go for preferential treatment in hiring if such legislation becomes not only enacted, but enshrined in civil rights circles to the point that people call for quotas or will they have to prove it in some way?
-
I think we just discovered the solution...socialized medicine. Did you notice that countries with some form of universal health care are taking fewer medications? So if you want the over medication to stop, just move toward socialized medicine!
Hate to admit it but it would help to curb the big drug companies from pushing their products so much.
Problem is, we have the worse combination for abuse to take place -- corporate incentives to promote more diagnosis of ADD/ADHD coupled with socialized education in an environment that focuses on rote memorization and conformity.
-
as for the personality traits.... many of those tests were created before the knowledge of add/adhd...
Or maybe they were designed prior to someone labeling a set of behaviors as a "disorder" and then prescribing drugs to solve it.
Yes, ADD/ADHD is a relatively recent phenomena. And it is not universally recognized or (if recognized) not treated the same way or diagnosed in such a frivilous manner.
Did anyone take note that the Frontline documentary pointed out that American kids consume 4X more pharmaseuticals for psychological "disorders" than all other kids in the world combined? Does that mean the rest of the world (i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Russia, China, Israel...) is just unenlightened or is the US situation truly out of control -- with businesses running the show and many doctors following the lead? Or educators thinking that behavioral control in the classroom justifies druging kids into submission since it might improve their concentration?
-
This is true, but most people who discriminate against non-RM's don't care to know if you "couldn't" or "wouldn't" go on a mission. They just know that you didn't.
And if they discriminate on such details then it's good to find out now rather than later. A person who demands a RM is probably someone who cares more about symbolism and status rather than substance. Personally, I think what's on the inside counts a lot more than something like if you went on a mssion or not.
-
When you stop looking for a single criterion that makes a diagnosis and begin to look at the whole picture, you will find that trends exist that give a pretty clear picture of what the diagnosis should or shouldn't be.
And how many times is this ignored in real life situations where kids are put on ritalin?
I found one of those tests that is called "Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) Symptoms Checklist. If you score 4 our of 6 in the range of "sometimes, often or very often" (of course on a couple of the questions "sometimes" doesn't count) then you are a considered a candidate for this label. However, this checklist ignores a lot of other possible personality issues.
On the first question it asks something about having a hard time wrapping up a project. It fails to account for issues with perfectionistic tendencies which would explain such an attribute. It would also ignore issues with "fear of success" which could be something that could be dealt with in Individual Psychology.
The second question deals with organization problems which again can have its roots in the above.
The third question deals with problems remembering appointments. Okay, there are personality characteristics associated with things like the INTP personality traits found in the Myers/Briggs Junian Personality Test (as well as several other core personalitues) that have this as a characteristic. Many people have a problem with tedius details (i.e. highly creative types).
The forth question deals with getting started in projects that require a lot of thought. Again, issues with failure and success as well as perfectionism.
The fifth question deals with moving around a lot when you have to sit for long periods. Gee, too bad for kenestitic people. Also, since when is not being able to sit through a boring lecture motionless against the human nature?
The final major question deals with feeling like you are driven by a motor. Okay, and the problem again is?
For those who watched the Frontline documentary who would think that the first child was in any way suffereing from a disorder? I like the fact they mentioned that his parents were French and they had never heard of their child's behavior being abnormal for a little boy. The child liked to be a star which is common, so what? And if the child is naturally histeronic is there something wrong with that?
-
Well, what you said here is simple to grasp. Now, please finish your thought. You mentioned polygamy before. So, if polygamy were reinstated, then what are you saying? That's the part where you lost me. How does living in a polygamous society differ in choosing a mate than in a monogamous society.
It's a math concept, nothing more!
The poor guy only has to find one gal who he can marry. That's all. The only time he'd have to worry about the opinions of a lot of gals is if he had the goal of getting 10 wives -- then he'd have to worry about the prevailing attitude in a singles ward or in a stake or the entire LDS world!
One shouldn't be all that hard to find.
"Immodest" Dance Outfits: Much Ado About Nothing?
in Parenting
Posted
Has anyone ever chastized the Osmonds for the outfits they have used over the years?