Vort

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you. There are two types of men: Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer. Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women: Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is. Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts. For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom. Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes. (By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

Nails through the wrist as a method of crucifixion is a kind of specialized knowledge or information that researchers and historians know about, but it isn't widely known among regular people.

Everyone will think you named it for the Hogwarts poltergeist.

The 52 Churches guy got baptized? Good for him! I hadn't heard.

While I believe this particular comment was a troll, I'm old and experienced enough to avoid claiming that no one is really that stupid.

.

It's convenient that the other planet's air pressure just happens to match that in their location, so that you don't get constant wind blowing out or something.

FTFY

As a child, I totally missed the self-referential brilliance of Elephant Jokes. As an adult, I have repented.

Interesting interpretation, one that has never occurred to me. I'll have to ruminate on that a bit. The legalistic term "bar" originally meaning a rail of wood that created a physical barrier between the public area of an "inn of Court" (a late medieval lawyer's guild, both the association and the building) and the area where legal scholars and personnel worked. At least, that's what I gleaned from the sources. On examination, I'm starting to think that applying this meaning of "bar" to the verse penned (inscribed) by Moroni is anachronistic. Maybe "bar" as "scepter" makes more sense.

McConkie was a lawyer. You'd be lucky to get him as defense counsel. As for Packard, he made some good cars back in the day. Later on, I think he and Hewlitt teamed up for some nonsense or other.

If the enemy attacks on the Sabbath, you defend yourselves on the Sabbath. Israel should not be waiting until May to respond to such aggressions.

By definition, I venture the answer is "no".

Indeed. In reviewing your answer, I didn't see any response to the question of what it is we're supposed to do, which is why I asked again.

Fair enough, and I apologize that I sounded accusatory. I've been too meek for too long, and stand in danger of losing my hard-earned reputation on this list as an intolerant hard-nose. But the response above more or less begs the question. You are arguing that the Lord is/might be taking away light and knowledge from the general membership because they reject it. Again, you may be correct; I have often posed similar questions to myself. But to what end are you asking such questions? If I accept your suggestion as truth, then what do I do to make things better? Should I be writing letters to Salt Lake? Should I be excoriating my fellow Saints in fast and testimony meetings for their faithlessness? Should I go around warning those in my ward and stake that we have already had much taken from us, and we are in imminent danger of losing more if we don't repent? Or is this merely idle speculation, something to chat about on an internet discussion list, not something to particularly worry about? Because it somehow feels urgent, yet I don't understand what that urgency is supposed to compel us (me) to do.

This is really a variation of option A, since the Adam-God doctrine would have stopped being taught because of the inability of the members to understand it. No. Rather, it suggests a teaching given for those who have ears to hear. Today's prophets have declared the Adam-God teaching to be false. That could be because it's false in its very nature, or it could be that we today do not have the keys of understanding needed for it, and therefore we interpret it falsely. So to us, i tmay be false, but to someone with the correct key to knowledge, it might well be true and enlightening. Clearly you consider yourself one with understanding. That may be the case. But if it is, how is it that you seek to parade your superior status and shame those who do not have that key? Why would you come out in apparent open defiance of the teachings of recent prophets? Just to show your superiority, how much smarter and more spiritually mature you are than the rest of us? Or do you seek to undermine confidence in the words of our leaders, so that we doubt and wonder whom to follow and when? I'm struggling to see how your actions lead anyone to a good end, even if we assume you are actually correct in what you say.

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

A for effort! A as is beetles, that is.

On another forum, I encountered for the very first time (that I know of) someone who preached this strange, twisted gospel that, as long as they are legally "married", homosexual couples should be sanctioned in intimate sexual relations and still be able to hold callings (though not temple recommends) and otherwise serve in the Church. I may not have believed it if I had not read it myself.

He was very clearly and explicitly referring to any teaching that would preclude the restoration of the Priesthood to all worthy men and the extension of the blessings of the temple to all worthy people. Are you referring to something else?

For the sake of argument, let us pretend for a moment that you are right. The Church membership is less spiritually robust than in past generations, have turned their back on certain elements of their covenants, and therefore have had some of the light and truth in their doctrines, practices, and temple covenants taken away by divine decree. What would you have us do? I mean, repent, of course—but that would be true in any case. What would you, Maverick, have us TH participants do? Should we contact the First Presidency and express our displeasure? Should we chain ourselves to the gates of the Seattle temple to show our unhappiness with the direction things are going? Should we, I don't know, get on public message boards and broadcast to all who will hear how the Church is drifting into apostasy and forgetting its covenant roots? Should we go all Jana Riess and start publishing as publicly as possible our displeasure, unrest, and rebellion against such things? Or should we perhaps sustain our leaders in their challenges during these difficult times? Should we rather bear fervent testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the reality of the restoration of Priesthood keys, and of the existence of the kingdom of heaven right here on Earth, with Christ Himself at the head and His chosen apostles leading and administering? I'm trying to figure out what it is you (Maverick) hope to accomplish in spreading your warning of wickedness and spiritual slothfulness among the Saints. As a result of the dire warnings given us by you, we should immediately do—what?

Based on the URL, I thought that Riess was the antecedent to "who". I generally do not click on links to the SL tribune, any more than I would click on links to Pornhub, but in a moment of weakness I did, and read enough to confirm that Sister Riess is not in fact the antecedent to "who". Not yet, at least.

A distinction without a difference.

Yes, indeed! It's wet and cloudy in Seattle.