Vort

Perhaps it says that because they (we) were and are under the curse of a broken law. That would certainly be my guess. Indeed they are. Please read carefully and in context. The city of Moronihah was destroyed at Christ's death, in partial fulfillment of Nephi's prophecy in 2 Nephi 26. Every living soul in that city was killed, not only the women and children. It was the women and children who were mourned by others by relatives (possibly including husbands) who were remote at the time of the events (though it says "mothers and fair daughters", not "wives"; note that granddaughters and, depending on the culture, nieces count as "daughters"). Why were only the women being mourned? Several obvious possibilities spring immediately to mind: Perhaps the men, at least as a whole, were considered wicked and unworthy of being mourned (or of the mourning for them being recorded in holy writ). Perhaps the men were simply held responsible for the evils that befell the people, because that was the place of the men or the mindset of the members of that particular culture. Perhaps this is a ritual mourning, and the men of that culture were not ritually mourned in this global-disaster scenario. (The term "global" being used loosely here.) Perhaps in such a case, the women, the actual bearers of children and the personification of the continuation of the race, were specifically mourned as the greatest loss, a "women-and-children-first" mindset that is not historically limited to western Europeans. Perhaps the specific people at this specific place being quoted were a small family group specifically mourning for their own mothers and daughters/granddaughters whom they knew had been lost. I again implore you, romans8, to stop this foolish game. Please quit misinterpreting and wresting the scripture to try to prove...well, I don't know what. Maybe that the Book of Mormon is false, or that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, or that we on this discussion list are all deluded fools. Your efforts in this direction will result only in harm to your own soul, possibly long-lasting or even permanent. (Well, and in irritation to the rest of us, which appears to be one of your goals.)

'Nuff said.

child: "Carborendum is a good daddy." mik: "Shut up."

So the first point you were trying to make was a criticism of the kingdom of God. This is how you want to engage us in mutually profitable conversation. The Restored Church of Christ causes no harm. None. If the Church's leaders don't say "be nice to people and don't abuse them" as often as you think appropriate, that does not make them guilty of causing "A LOT of harm", or even a little bit of harm. I would say it's the abusers who cause the harm, not the kingdom of God. So I think you are wrong. I also think you're picking a fight, the bait to which I'm struggling mightily not to rise to. I suspect this is untrue. I suspect most abusers are non-charismatic. Most abusers of my acquaintance have not been pleasant people. A few have put on a façade, but it was seen through pretty easily after knowing the person for a short amount of time. More likely than what? Than to be the one who sits alone or who speaks unkindly to others? Again, I disbelieve you. I suppose your moral is that we shouldn't be a 'handshaker' or show up to activities, since that would mark us as abusers. Poor bishops. This I can believe. It's rather heartbreaking. On the other hand, many people who look like they're falling apart really are falling apart, and not because some external party is abusing them. They are falling apart because they do not manage their life choices well. How could you possibly know this? Are you truly an authority on what the average abuser is like personally? A reasonable assumption, since anything we see is only the visible, observable part of a much more comprehensive reality that external actors do not perceive. I am sincerely happy to hear this. Do you understand which parts of what you wrote in your original post led others to perceive your attitude toward men as negative? I am not qualified to speak for anyone but myself, but I strongly suspect that everyone on this list who reads your OP sympathizes with you for the history of abuse you appear to have suffered. As for what you would like to see change, please keep in mind that this is a discussion group, not a therapy group. We discuss things. We analyze the discussion points of others based on the merits of those points. I believe we try to be friendly and kind, but we are not (I am not) above sarcasm when appropriate. So when you come to an LDS-oriented discussion list and lead out by criticizing the actions and attempts of the kingdom of God to serve you and the rest of us, you should be something less than surprised when many don't really respond well to your post.

I can understand why. It's frustrating when men, who are the problem with the world, point out that sometimes people treat them bad. They act like they don't even deserve it. Jerks.

Fundamental tenet of the Left: Never, never, never admit you were wrong. (Corollary: Never, never, never apologize. Because that would be tantamount to admitting you're wrong. Also, even if you're wrong, you're not sorry. Not that truth has any value per se, but as a general rule it's better to leave the lying to times when it proves advantageous.)

Yes, riding through the Old Country yesterday in my locally sourced Maserati, enjoying the unspoiled vineyards and rolling Tuscany countryside, the clear, scented air of the villa, music in the air, the servants chatting jovially in their native Florentine dialect, really brought home to me the fact that it's the simple things in life that count, those that mere vulgar money cannot buy.

I often wish I could shake some sense into my present-day self. But I can't seem to get a good grip on my shoulders or around my neck.

I understand that. But it looks to me like the humor derives from the misapplication of archaic speech patterns to modern speech, rather than from grammatically wrong application of archaic speech patterns. Maybe you think that both are true, and that the humor is based at least partly on wrongly using such archaic patterns. Perhaps you're right. My guess is that, like most people who try to be funny using "thou" and its declinations, the author didn't really understand what he was writing, and instead was just trying to use "old-timey" speechification. I think what he wrote would have been just as funny, if not funnier, had he used correct grammar. I also freely acknowledge that my perspective doesn't define truth, and that when analyzing why other people do what they do, I often get it wrong.

Outrageous. I would never do such a thing. Never. But hypothetically, if I did, I would mute before flushing. And if I forgot or failed to mute on accident, I would deny and pretend it never happened. Hypothetically. But of course, I would never be in that position in the first place, because that's just disgusting. How gauche!

I agree with the prodigal son. That's pretty clever. Although I must say that "thine rapid progress" is nonsense. Look, folks, it isn't hard. "Thy" is used before words beginning with consonants and "thine" before words beginning with vowels; thus "thy rapid progress" but "thine absurd statement".

ChatGPT will play you Zork on request.

I agree with the prodigal son. That's pretty clever.

BTW, Gator's OP is spot-on that those who major in physics (or probably any engineering degree) spend the rest of their lives scoffing and shaking their heads at Hollywood productions that ignore the laws of physics. Doesn't necessarily ruin the movie, but it does set the expectations bar higher.

There should be a third, largest pie piece: "Flipping burgers at McDonald's pays less than CS majors make"

WW can speak any language?! That's totally cool. A worthy superpower in and of itself.

Besides, it's 32.2 ft/s2. If you're going to 3 sig figs metric, you should do 3 sig figs imperial.

I'm definitely not a cat person, but this kind of thinking resonates with me.

I would quibble with the wording. It's far more than a mere preference, like chocolate ice cream vs. strawberry. It's a covenant obligation to keep the Sabbath day holy. We should be actively investigating what that means and striving to fulfill that duty. Refusing to level judgment against another because of his choices in the matter is honorable and good. Refusing to make any distinctions and simply go with personal preference for Sabbath day activities is not honorable or good.

As a teenager, I once heard a smoker say that non-smokers stunk, in both breath and body odor. His actual words were "they smell like milk".

My wife just reminded me of this anecdote: When our youngest was maybe four, we knew that he had almost learned what it meant to refrain from telling people what their Christmas presents were when he told one of his brothers, "You're getting sewing machine underwear for Christmas!", thus preserving the secret that the brother was actually getting race car underwear.

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

The Lord begins the revelation of the Word of Wisdom by telling us that he is giving us the revelation "[i]n consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days..." It is my opinion that Anheuser Busch is a group of "conspiring men", in toto if not individually, and that their products are the very things we have been warned against. This "conservative" (better termed right-wing) so-called boycott is a blip on the radar. A-B and their products, including Bud Light, should go out of business because their poison causes death, destruction, and misery among American families and people in general, not specifically because they hired a cynical, mentally ill transsexual as their spokesperson.

For a period of time, my mother bought her six children raw milk. (Regular bovine milk, but unpasteurized, fresh from the cow.) For the first week, we complained that it stunk and tasted funny. After a week, we didn't think anything of it, until we went to visit Grandma and had regular "whole" milk. Tasteless and disgusting. We couldn't wait to get home to real (raw) milk that tasted so, so good.

To this true statement, I add this caveat: That a thing is between you and the Lord does not mean that there is no single right answer, but that the answer is something you must find in spiritual conversation between you and the Lord.