unixknight

I just mean that what I regard as common sense may or may not be the same as what you do, or anyone else. Even so, people often use the phrase as if it held a universal definition. Yeah mental health is an area where we as a society have lagged behind severely. Until our understanding of mental health issues gets a LOT better, it is extremely difficult to come up with legislation of this kind that is both effective, fair, and doesn't unduly interfere with Constitutional rights..

Thank you for clarifying the difference, @Maureen. And yeah, I have heard it explained both ways under the general category of 'trinity' from Catholic and from Protestant friends and acquaintances over the years. Anyway, the questions I asked earlier about Gethsemane, the Cross and Jesus' Baptism were all meant to illustrate the contradiction I see between the concept of the trinity/modalism and the events as described in Scripture.

Ok, so how is that different from modalism?

No doubt it is incredibly frustrating... But He is doing plenty about it! He's sending missionaries all over the world to change that very thing. Materials and information are freely available to anyone, and everyone is welcome at our meetings. It happens sometimes. If we pray for answers and don't get them, sometimes it just means we need to be patient. God operates according to His schedule, not ours. If we pray about something and feel it isn't true, then it's time to do a little study, a little more prayer, and to counsel with those whom we trust.

Yeah man, definitely worrying WAY too much... as in, worrying > 0 is too much here. Obviously you know what you're supposed to be doing and not doing, and the fact that you care about it so much means that your heart and mind are otherwise right where they should be. You're okay. Stop worrying and no, you don't have anything to feel guilty over. Stray thoughts come to mind for all of us, bro. As you went down the list of incidents in your mind, I kept thinking "yep, me too." The fact that you can tell your wife about it is awesome, because that means she trusts you and knows how to contextualize that stuff. It's the same way with me. In fact, she and I joke about it all the time. I was talking once with my Bishop about things in general and the conversation got onto these things, and he said the same thing I'm telling you here: You can't necessarily control the stray thoughts that come into your mind. What you can control is whether you feed those thoughts and what you do or don't do about them. Clearly you aren't doing anything to encourage them, and you aren't acting on them. That's where you should be.

I agree also about it being unconstitutional and unenforceable. I do get twitchy whenever I hear/see someone say "common sense gun reform" because the term means nothing. Everybody has their own idea of what "common sense" means. That's why it's such a great political marketing term. I can see in cases of certain types of mental illness.

Exactly, as though He were a separate person. Then what, functionally, is the difference between trinitarianism and the Godhead as we see it?

I really wish I'd thought of it at the time. My problem is I really try to see things from others' point of view, and normally it takes a while for it to really sink in and I realize that no, they're just being unreasonable/irrational/words I won't use on this forum. I wish I could share the E-mail exchange between Penny and me afterward, but that wouldn't be appropriate since it was a private conversation. There was one element that really stuck with me that I wish I'd handled differently. Keep in mind, this E-mail exchange was mostly calm and cordial. So early on, she said that there had been an incident around 11 years ago or so, in which some of us (meaning the conservatives) were saying homophobic things and she sat silently and said nothing. Afterward, she berated herself for not standing up for the gay people in her life. She presented it in a lot of detail so even though I don't remember such an incident, and it doesn't sound like something any of us in the group would do, I extended her an apology, solely on the basis of my belief that she was a) rational and b) remembered correctly. Later, as the discussion proceeded, and combined with her behavior at the game, I began to realize that the incident she was talking about probably had a lot more to do with her perceptions and assumptions than anything legitimately hateful on our part. Maybe somebody commented on homosexual behavior being sinful, or maybe I expressed my lack of support for same sex marriage or something. Add a few years and a lot of emotion and presto! You get someone whose memory has been colored by time and extra baggage. I do not hate homosexuals and I never have, and the same can be said for the others on the conservative side of my group. I wish I hadn't apologized, because that apology was based on my faith in her, which I now know is not justified. At any rate, this was her motive for causing a scene at that last game session. Her regret over not speaking up 11 years before moved her to melt down on this occasion. I can understand that, in a way, but afterward she was unwilling to discuss anything in the E-mail "I'm not going to discuss this with you" became a mantra.

In this case, I gotta stick with blaming politics. We're talking about people who weren't like this before, but have now changed. I was able to overlook the changes for a while, but now I'm thinking I should have somehow addressed it long before it got to that point. Well if it's to be civil war, I'm glad I'll be on the side that's actually armed. I've thought about that, but I have 3 reasons to not do it. People will talk about what they want to talk about. I can barely keep them form injecting Monty Python or Princess Bride lines into every other roleplay scene as it is. Capping the topics of discussion during the social hour that precedes each game? Not a chance. That feels too much like censorship to me. In a group of adults, it shouldn't be a problem. If someone can't be an adult, that's a failing with them, not in my social atmosphere. The line between subjects that are political and subjects that aren't is so fuzzy now I don't think it's possible anymore. Can we talk about Star Wars? Superhero movies? Oops. Nope. Those have all been politicized now. You're no SJW. The fact that you're here and willing to even have conversations with those you don't agree with demonstrates it. I respect that. A lot. Got 3 of 'em. Like I said to LP, I can't do it. We have a social hour where we chat, catch up on each other and have dinner for an hour before the game starts. Sometimes the conversation is about politics, sometimes it isn't. Ever since I trimmed he group down to just the people who can be adults, it's been completely peaceful and friendly, even when there's disagreement. It isn't a bubble. I've thought about doing that during the game, but it feels a but too authoritarian. I've found that as long as the players don't feel like they're being shafted, and if you're otherwise generous to them when it comes to the rules, arguments are rare.

Okay, but how is that not describing the disparate wills of two different beings? While I agree with what you said here, that also sounds like a discussion of separate beings. And again, sounds like a description of three separate Beings. Such as? Because so far, in all of these examples I agree with what you said about who is saying or doing what. The difference is that my interpretation is that we are seeing the words and actions of three divine Beings here, whereas the trinitarian position is trying to interpret this as being a single being in three manifestations, which is not the implication I see here. I used to be Catholic, so I am competently versed in the trinitarian views on the matter.

I used to be Catholic. I get all that stuff. I'm just interested in @AbramM's response.

I'm looking forward to the answers to my questions, then.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus said "Not my will, but thine be done" who was He addressing? Who did Jesus say forsook Him as he was dying on the cross, when He said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When Jesus was baptized, who was it that said "Behold my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased?" The trinitarian answer to all 3 of those is "Himself." Is that your answer, and does it make sense?

D'oh! You're right, my bad. It's just that I'm eagerly anticipating the riposte.

I predict he will reply with John 10:30.

Oh I still do... just trying to get control over this problem. You know what I realized this afternoon? Bad eating habits are a freaking disorder, man. I found myself sitting here, choosing not to eat my lunch until I'm actually feeling hungry, and realizing that I actually want to be hungry so that I can go ahead and eat. How backwards is that? There are people in the world for whom hunger is the normal state and here I am wanting to use it as an excuse to eat food, not because I need it but because I just want to eat food. I disgust myself sometimes, I really do.

That's exactly how it is between Tony and me. He and I have been friends for 30 years, and we met over D&D. He's not conservative, but he's incredibly reasonable and laid back, and even though he has no use for religion, he has never been snarky toward me or anyone else for being believers. At one point Penny offered to return to D&D if I told Tony he couldn't play. It took all my self discipline not to openly laugh in her face.

Penny first joined us in D&D back in 2002 or 2003. She was a young high schooler and I quickly began to regard her as a niece. In those days, my group was about half adults and half kids, and we even played in the church building with our Bishop's permission. She has been described as one of the nicest people you could ever meet, and I really believed that until last August. Now, I'm forced to wonder. How long has she been so contemptuous of my views and beliefs? How long has she been wearing the mask? For me to admit that she isn't really a friend anymore feels too much like "unfriending" someone over politics... And yet, I've known for years that she was a lefty, and I didn't care. Her behavior in August is what broke it, and yet I still feel like I could have done something differently. The more I think over the last few years, the more I realize how we have been gradually censored by the less tolerant members of the group. The same people who complained about political discussions on the message board also tend to be the ones who rarely used it anyway... as if they couldn't stand that such discussions were taking place anywhere. They could criticize Christianity or secular conservative stances with impunity but reacted with anger at any response. Some of the leftists had already "unfriended" the conservatives on the various social media platforms they used, and I'd already had to split the group in half early last year to separate one belligerent from the target. I've quietly deactivated the accounts of those in my group who rarely used our website, as a test. So far, nobody seems to have noticed.

I've been a DM for 30 years and this is the first time I've ever had to do this. What I essentially have done was to reorganize the groups in such a way that the people who get along with each other are together. Unfortunately, that means splitting them up almost entirely along political lines. The "conservative" group actually isn't all conservative, just the mix of people who can act like adults. The "leftist" group has yet to reconstitute, and I may not bother. Penny has already indicated that she won't come if it means having to "triple check whatever she says" which she said unironically. (Remember, she melted down because of what someone else said.) I spoke one-on-one with one of these guys, and told him that we're well aware of hos much contempt he and the others have for our beliefs and religion. To his credit, he didn't bother denying it. That's now an elephant in the room that makes me unwilling to resume with them. I know it's possible... but it really takes the right people. I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is, where's the problem? Do I have the wrong people, or is it me? I always dreaded the day politics would start costing me friends. I don't use Facebook or Twitter, and within the discussion forums on our club website I agreed a couple years ago to discourage political threads at the request of - you guessed it - the left-leaning thinkers in our group. When they'd make little snide comments about conservatism or Christianity, the rest of us bit our tongues to let it slide to keep the peace. It's been an uncomfortable situation for a long time. I was always afraid that it would be politics that caused one or more of these friends to distance themselves, and yet here I am, feeling like maybe I'm the one who's doing the distancing… because I am, and yet... it isn't like they've been blowing me up with texts or E-mails about when the D&D games will resume. They're aware that I restarted with the chill people, and are probably accusing me of creating a bubble to keep them out of. I don't think they're right about that... and yet I can't help feeling guilty.

Yeah that's true. It just seemed like a very glaring omission to have left out who Joseph Smith is. And who knows, maybe the missionaries visiting would do her a world of good too.

Now I'm picturing Anatess with the hair on the left side of her head shorn, the rest dyed white and black stripes, spiky leather wrist bracelets, Almost goth makeup, baggy black jeans with various skulls, pentacles, and middle finger charms dangling form a steel chain belt, a baggy midriff shirt with some punk band logo on it, and combat boots. All while screaming "F... the man!" and stomping on her homework papers. Yes, this is the image I shall use.

Fair question, and yeah I can think of a couple. My oldest son as well as a couple of friends of mine suffered greatly as a result of what they perceived to be a hard rule about dating returned missionaries only. In both cases I'm thinking of, these guys had girls in their wards who were interested in them, but dropped hem like a hot potato when it came out that they hadn't served missions. Now, making a personal choice of who to date/marry is perfectly fine, but the rationale was always to cite it as a rule that most people failed to meet the lofty standards of. (Mind you, this was before President Monson became the head of the Church. You know, they guy who also dind't serve a mission.) In the same ward, there were a few people who signalled their virtue by not watching any movie rated 'R' regardless of the reason, and making sure that everybody else knew it. Again, making a persnal choice about what movies you watch is perfectly fine, but they too were citing it as if it were a doctrinal rule. (As if the Church would base doctrine on the judgement of a movie organization that doesn't even share our values.) It wasn't enough to just say "I don't watch R rated movies, regardless of the content." It's another thing entirely to pass one's self off as a superior Saint for it. You also see this in people who donate extra at tithing or Fast Sunday and then look down on others who simply do what's required. Same thing with the WoW. Abstain from Coffee, tea, tobacco, alchohol, etc... But anybody who drinks Pepsi or Coke is one of them borderline apostate jack Mormons. Seen that a few times, too.

I can understand that. If she was being deceptive, then I'd venture to say you guys have other issues to work out first. I know, I'm just saying it would be worth your time to do this, even if only for your personal edification. After all, this is part of who she has always been. Isn't it worthwhile to help understand her better?

Fortunately, I'm too ugly to convincingly be spliced on to the body of anybody people would want to watch.

True, He wasn't. I respect your desire to not offend, but at the same time I feel like you guys would really benefit a lot from some more openness in your communication. And to be fair, I acknowledge that if you got this far with dating that LDS girl without knowing who Joseph Smith was, that says more about her inability to communicate openly than anything else. I don't know if she feels unsafe telling you these things, out of a fear that you'll dismiss her and her beliefs, or whether she just isn't good at communication. I dunno, and I won't speculate. I leave all that to you. What I can say is that the deeper you go, doctrinally, the less similar LDS and Protestantism (or Orthodoxy) are. I think you're probably getting an inkling of that through the conversation here. The core of LDS belief, in terms of our understanding of eternal principles, is utterly incompatible with the general Protestant view. There's a reason these things aren't regarded as equivalent, and why it's a much, much bigger deal for your girlfriend to switch churches than for you to. As others have suggested, I'd also recommend that you gain a deeper knowledge of that before you make any decisions, and that the best way to do it is to ask the missionaries over. They're well equipped to answer these kinds of questions and present this information to someone who hasn't heard it before.