MarginOfError

I recently went on a rant against Mormons from Utah and all the reasons I sometimes find them annoying. It was brought to my attention by someone that I might have been a bit mean. However, my feelings still stand and they are what they are. However, it made me wonder something I've never really thought about before. What do Mormons from Utah think of us that aren't from Utah. What are the things we do that dive the Utahns nuts? Please share. I'm kind of curious.

Dangit...I hate making a fool of myself! My apologies...let's flip all the gender references there. It works both ways.

I attended a seminary class that started at 5.50 AM every morning. I then went to school and slept through my first two classes. Very much worth it. But I agree with your husband in your situation. If the kids aren't committed to it, they won't gain as much from it, especially if your husband isn't supportive. Take your daughter, and encourage your son, but seminary was by far the best thing I did in high school.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me just say that I despise Utah. So go ahead and take anything I say with a grain of salt. We have a lot of people come to live out here for school (Dental, Medical, and Law) and the thing that really gets me is how much the Utah people complain about having to drive six miles (10 minutes) to get to Church. It level of annoyance rises as their level of sincerity rises. There are some people here that hate being here solely because it's so far to Church. Yet, in the area I grew up, we had to travel 40 minutes to get to Church, and that was if the guards at the border didn't require us to stop. I drove 25 minutes every morning to get to Seminary, and I had one of the shorter trips. Stake Conference and any Stake Priesthood meetings were almost two and a half hours away. And the temple!? Try 13 hours. So really, don't complain that it's more than two blocks to the chapel...those of us outside of Utah have no sympathy for you. If I can get past that issue with the Utards, then I usually get caught on issue number two...they can't stand the place because the Church doesn't necessarily function like they saw it function in Utah. When i moved into my current ward a year ago, I wanted to get involved in Scouting. The ward here has two young men, and the scouting program was falling apart. The Bishopric asked for my advice and suggestions on how to put it back together, so I looked at the available resources and recommended that they shut down their scouting program and join an active troop sponsored by one of the local communities (the ward here has all of two young men, one of whom has no interest in scouting). But a lot of people freaked out about the idea, saying that we couldn't possibly go to a community troop because the Church has to run scouting in order to involve the Gospel element of it (which, by the way, is totally false). As a result, the ward is now trying to maintain a scout troop for 1 boy in this ward and three in a neighboring ward with almost zero budget, next to nothing for leadership, and an entirely untrained team of leaders. So far it's been a disaster, and two of the boys have left the troop to join a community troop. And the last thing that really gets me, in all this scouting fiasco, I joined a community troop. I just decided I wanted to do it, so I went and did it. I didn't get one dirty look or complaint from any of the ward members (who I thought would criticize that I should be helping the Ward's troop), but I did get dirty looks because, as they put it, "you're doing something without a calling?" Imagine the shock that a person could volunteer to contribute something to the community without being asked by the Bishop! Okay okay okay, not all of the people from Utah are these kinds of Utards, and I've got some wonderful friends from Utah. But they recognize that it is possible to live outside of Utah and be happy. I just want the Utards, while they're here, to keep their mouths shut and get back to Utah as soon as they can so I don't have to deal with them. I might say more later, but I have to go eat breakfast and get my lunch ready. ciao!

Woah, danger my friend. Now you're telling women it's their fault for not communicating. The fact of the matter is they are communicating, and you're not understanding. And rule #1 of communication is any misunderstanding is the fault of the receiver. The issue really isn't helped by saying that the other gender [style] has to be changed. Instead, you should be doing your best to learn to interpret the communicative behaviors of the other side.

You also might take a look at You Just Don't Understand. I've advocated this book a few times before. The main gist of this book is men and women generally view the world from differing paradigms. Women define their relationships through the lens of intimacy and connection--often measured by talk, rapport, and trading 'secrets'--while men define their relationships through status--usually measured by personal accomplishments, knowledge, and problem solving. Thus, one possible interpretation is that men and women don't have trouble understanding each other's words, but they do have trouble interpreting those words in the other gender's context. This isn't the end-all of communication books, but it's a pretty good one.

First of all, have you told your fiance? If you haven't told her, then you have no business getting married anyway. Second, you need to tell your bishop. I have my doubts that an 'isolated overseas' incident can be so lightly waived when it's been described as the worst sin except for denying the Holy Ghost and murder. You'll have to tolerate my bluntness, but if you really think that you can move past this without speaking to those two people, I'd get the impression that you're not really worried about repentance as much as you are worried about not getting caught.

I'm afraid I find this a little hard to swallow as well. I've heard various numbers of LDS divorce rates, with the general rate ranging anywhere from the 24% here to 40%. The 6% for temple marriages also seems a bit low to me. Especially since it implies a 75% divorce rate among non-temple marriages. Unfortunately, your links to this study didn't work, so I can't do a real critique of the research. Could you try posting the link to the research again?

Please don't tell me I have to choose between those two gods. I don't know that I could bear the wrath of either.

Oddly, in this case, earlier is better. Up until about 2-3 months, the newborn wont' care much where he or she sleeps. But once the circadian rhythms kick in, it's a lot more frustrating to the child to be thrown off schedule. But looking at the mom's point of view, I can see how that's a bit early. With this one, I'm not sure. I think it varies from person to person. My wife and I would have been exceptionally happy to babysit even after two weeks. Some women disappear for 3 months! No easy answer here I suppose.

Oops

I'd love to write such a short story, but it'd be as speculative and fictional as any answer you're going to get. The details surrounding the origin of God are not revealed to us because we haven't mastered the teachings that have been given to us. When we, collectively as a race, have mastered faith, repentance, and obedience, perhaps then such will be revealed. In the meantime, I submit that discussing this topic would be like discussing the Central Limit Theorem in College Algebra--you might be able to convey a vague conceptual meaning, but the beauty and the impact of the theorem are lost.

Sounds like a good plot for a short story, doesn't it?

That's mean...they limited the number of characters on the edits

You really ought to do this Bert and Ernie style.

They have their mother's limits of integration. Perhaps if he hadn't caught me spending so much time with Student.

Some of these ideas may or may not be true. I don't really care either way. The issue I take is that a lot of these ideas are being extracted from statements, discourses, journals, etc by people who haven't done the work to earn them. A prime example: Mormon Doctrine -- I can't tell you how many times I've heard people quote that book as if it were official Mormon doctrine. But mind you, that book has been edited almost as much as the history of the papacy (my apologies ceeboo). At the same time, they have no idea where the basis of those conclusions is. If you ask them to support the conclusion with scripture, they look at you blankly and say, "well, someone smarter than me said it." Well, Plato was smarter than you too, and his Republic experiment failed miserably. My suggestion is to stick to the Standard Works, and the addresses at General Conference. You'll find everything you need to know in there, and if you study very carefully and with faith, you'll learn everything you want to know about these 'deep and mysterious doctrines' right from the source. As for whether we might be worshipped some day, this is all I have to say: the people we worship are those that have the power over our salvation. The only way we would ever be worshipped is if we had power over others' salvation. So, if indeed we can become Gods and create worlds in this same model, then we would be worshipped in our role regarding those people's salvation. The advancement into godhood, however, is not a principle of the Gospel. The endpoint of the Gospel in our doctrine is overcoming spiritual death and returning to live with God the Father, and Jesus Christ. Any perks that may or may not be associated with such exaltation are corollary at best, and very often speculative. And they certainly have no place in talks coming from our pulpits.

Actually it was Pascal's bah mitzvah. He does seem quite adorable though!

I fell out of that tree when I was four. Explains I lot, I'm sure The fact that your statement isn't definitive kind of bothers me.

So this morning while I was waiting for my clothes to dry, I finally (hee hee) got around to (snicker snicker) putting up some (giggles) pictures on my (ho ho ho hoooo) profile. You should check them out.

You seem to be having some memory problems (can't remember your gender?). Are you sure you aren't pregnant?

The method is one we studied in my persuasion classes. The approacher is trying to put you in a state of Cognitive Dissonance. She approached you and established you as a 'Good Christian Person' and then tried to drop the bomb on you saying that she needed help--help that a good christian person wouldn't hesitate to give. The fact that you seem disturbed, and that you felt the need to write about tells me that she was successful, and did indeed create the Cognitive Dissonance she desired (although apparently without the desired end result). The tactic is one designed to put the two people in agreement with each other before all the information is available, thereby making the request harder to deny. It is widely considered an unethical approach (except in very isolate circumstances), and so I don't think there's any reason a person should feel guilty denying a request when approached in such a manner. There's the professional part of my comments. Now for something completely different: I was at scouts on night and one of the other Assistant Scout Masters was telling me he needed to leave early to get to his interfaith volleyball team. They were playing the Mormons that night, and he really wanted to be there. Apparently, the mormon team hadn't been representing the Church too well and there was a lot of animosity against them (when the LDS team was up by 10 points, they were still spiking the ball as hard as they could against a significantly older team, and at one point, hit a woman on the other team in the head an nearly knocked her unconscious). I remember this guy saying a few things about the team and then commenting, "I know, that isn't very Christian to say about them, but they aren't Christians, so it doesn't matter." I just started chuckling, and I guess from the way I was grinning he could tell I must be Mormon. Poor guy felt so bad.

I read in the October 2002 (?) issue of Discover Magazine (I'm fuzzy on the date, but I"m sure it was around then) about the moon and some comparisons between the geological structure of the moon and the earth. One of the things they pointed out was that the rocks on earth contain a certain amount of water. In fact, it was estimated, that if all of the water in those rocks could be drawn out, it would be enough water to fill the oceans six over. That's a lot of water! and I suppose one possible interpretation of the 'fountains of the great deep' (see below). Disclaimer: I do not endorse this interpretation. Just food for thought.

Umm...hello eye candy!

plus or minus 6.39%