Vort

When they spell "Labor" with a 'u', who can resist? Hey, I'm only houman!

Indeed, this is a profound insight into the mind of God. The natural world is set up as a collection of things to be acted upon, and they fill their roles. The children of God are made out of the same stuff as those things. From the earthy origins of our bodies, we inherit the selfsame tendencies to respond and react, to be things that are acted upon. But we have more than that. We have a spirit that comes from God, that is a created child of God. Our spirits can work their own works, above that of the earthy flesh. We can choose not to act like turkeys. It's a challenge, to be sure. The flesh is weak and its influence is very strong. Much of what we see about us in human society is a reflection of this. But the very existence of the human race and the fact that we do see great and noble things evidences our divine gift of moral agency. On a tangentially related note, this is why I have no philosophical problem with organic evolution. We ARE animals, unless we exercise our moral agency to be something greater. I see no reason to object to the idea that our physical bodies follow (and followed) exactly the same path as all other physical things we see. Those paths are set by God, and all things physical follow them. Are we of the flesh or of the spirit? Or to put it another popular way: Are we physical beings experiencing spirituality, or are we spiritual beings experiencing physicality? Many start out seemingly as the former, but we should strive to become the latter.

Dontcha hate it when the chickens come home to roost?

A member of the First Presidency recently visited and spoke with the LDS students at a midwest law school. My son was present at the meeting. My son indicated that, without any names being explicitly mentioned except in general terms such as "this administration", it was evident that this man was not a fan of President Trump. Yet much of what the leader said had to do with standing strong against the evils championed by President Trump's political opponents. I suspect this ambiguity is present not only among the highest quorums of the Church, but is general among Church members, including on this forum.

Brother, it's never too late to repent. The best people do it every day.

I, on the other hand, am not widely known for my wisdom.

Truly a word of wisdom.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-general-election-2019/2019/12/12/cc5ecb98-17ae-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

Indeed. Many Latter-day Saints attribute an almost magical power to bearing one's testimony. And I can vouch for the fact that, at times, an honest testimony can be accompanied by an undeniable spiritual witness to a sincere seeker. But the main reason a testimony is a stopper is not always (or even usually) because the accompanying witness of the Spirit is so strong that you can't deny it. Rather, it's because a testimony is a take-it-or-leave-it statement by its very nature. Someone says, "I know thus-and-such to be true." What can you say? "No, you don't know that"? There is no head-on way to disagree with a personal testimonial. That doesn't mean you must therefore believe it, though. Realistically, all you can say in response is either "I believe you" or "I don't believe you". Or possibly "I don't know whether or not I believe you", which is functionally equivalent to saying "I don't believe you". So, yes, testimonies can indeed be conversation-stoppers. I do not believe that is normally their purpose, though.

Not all of us are sold on "therapy" as a generally useful tool. And if you don't have insurance specifically covering such psychological therapy, I would guess it's pretty expensive anywhere. I think what you need, what most people in the world need, is a set of friends who are, in order of importance, (1) loving, (2) adult, and (3) reasonably informed. If we could establish true emotional intimacy with such friends, I suspect most of these sorts of problems would dry up.

Your points are well-taken, but you misunderstand me. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my viewpoint. I'm just explaining my viewpoint so that others can see where I'm coming from. As I already wrote, I share many of these biases myself, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing them and trying to point them out. How we look today is to some pretty large extent a reflection of what our ancestors found beautiful.

I am in a state of near disbelief in realizing that I agree with this. I certainly never agreed with it before, not at any time in the past until maybe the Gorsuch nomination.

Not sure. "Perverse" is a general indictment of our society, one that I would be surprised if most here didn't agree with. It encompasses situations where normal, desirable traits of men or women are minimized, dismissed altogether, or even held in contempt. Women as the designated stay-at-home parents, men as the designated breadwinner, a desire to rear children, even the very idea of a nuclear family are ignored or despised. That's perverse. I think that might reasonably extend to finding the normal, God-given traits of men and women distasteful—you know, things like body hair. As for infantilizing: How did the whole idea of women shaving their legs or armpits get started? Hair on women's head isn't seen as unappealing. Eyebrows aren't seen as unappealing (possibly very masculine eyebrows). Why other body hair, specifically underarm hair? Unlike chest or back or facial hair, axillary hair is almost universal among adult women. Why should anyone find it more attractive when it's shaved off? The root of the answer seems obvious to me: Little girls don't have underarm hair, so shaving off underarm hair is an attempt to make an adult woman look more like a little girl. And why would an adult woman want to look more like a little girl? Well...hairy armpits are a turnoff...that's sexual...so obviously, the hairless armpits of little girls are more sexually appealing. At the risk of discussing things that maybe should not be openly discussed: I read an article a few months back that mentioned how modern porn shows a preference for women to be shaved in the pubic area. Individual variations of taste aside, why would the average man want his wife or lover to not have any pubic hair? I mean, that would make her look like...well... A little girl. Bingo. Gross? Disgusting? Horrible? Make whatever value judgments you want. But that's infantilizing.

Do you find eyebrows unappealing? Pubic hair? Women being taller and stronger than children? Girls grow up into women. That's how it's supposed to be. And adult women grow hair on various parts of their bodies, including the scalp, the brow, the forearms, the legs, the pubis, and the armpits. To find those things unappealing is to find womanhood unappealing. It's the same as women finding men's beards to be disgusting (which many women do). Healthy children generally do not have visible body hair. Healthy adults do. To prefer the body-hairless look in an adult is infantilization by definition. Clearly, few men would find it appealing for a woman to have a man's body hair pattern. But armpit hair is not a solely masculine trait—except in western societies, where the fashion trend against body hair has been overpoweringly reinforced in the last century. I am not pretending to be above this cultural preference. I'm an American. I grew up watching TV. I share many of the same stupidities as the vast majority of my fellow countrymen. But that doesn't mean I can 't see the foolishness of it, or that I'm unwilling to point it out.

Gotta tell you, this is an indictment of our own perverse, infantilizing culture, and an example of where the feminists actually have a good point. A partially dressed woman in a seductive pose is universally recognized and is not really Godly...but the fact that she has armpit hair? News flash: In most races of human beings, adult women have axillary hair. If we find that weird or disgusting, that's a problem with us, not with women's hairy armpits.