Vort

Semperrideo has made the one fatal error for anyone seeking sympathy on this board: He allowed himself to be born male. The board rules are these: If a woman seeks sympathy, give it to her. The more she complains, the more you must sympathize.Calling her spouse/boyfriend/significant other names and adjudging him worthy of excommunication and painful death, while not strictly required, is greatly encouraged.If the woman reveals that she is guilty of adultery, physical abuse, misusing the subjunctive, or any other heinous crime, see Rule #1.If a man seeks sympathy, condemn him. For example: Tell him to quit whining.Tell him he should treat his wife better.Tell him to grow a pair.Be creative! Think up your own withering criticism!If the man reveals that he is guilty of misbehavior (e.g. "emotional infidelity"), make it clear to him that he is a child of hell.foreverafter must respond at least five time on any such thread, repeating that women misbehave only out of impotent frustration with their husbands' many abuses.It is strongly suggested that someone work into the thread the idea that polygamy will exist in the hereafter because women are so much more inherently virtuous than men.

I don't remember the particular article I was reading -- something on Slate. But the phrase itself is very common, unfortunately. Surely I'm not the only one to have noticed this! Am I?

The joy of Murder on the Orient Express is completely lost to you.

I have tried hard to get over my irritation with common mispronunciations, misspellings, and various malapropisms. But what really, really, REALLY gets my goat is when people insist on referring to sexual activity as something intrinsically bad or wicked. For example, I'll read an article where someone talks about "doing the nasty". HUH?! What sort of twisted, perverted sicko WANTS to think of sex as something debasing or nasty? A person treating another person in a despicable manner: Nasty.An especially messy, odoriferous, and old baby diaper: Mildly nasty.A booger hanging out of the nose of an unsuspecting person: Perhaps borderline nasty, if you're super-sensitive to that sort of thing.Puppies, merry children, beautiful flowers, and (non-perverted, non-sicko) sex: Not nasty.Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

I appreciate the compliment. Perhaps the grad school physics wasn't a total waste after all.

When I bite my cheek on one side and it's bleeding and aching and a chunk is hanging out of it, I just can't rest until I bite the other cheek to make it match. Same with tooth fillings and hangnails. You don't want to know what happened when I broke my arm.

Thanks for the advice, Anthony. As it turns out, I'm pretty well-acquainted with quantum physics, at least as far as your example goes. Particles can indeed "zap into existence", but only for the Planck time, which is an exceedingly small time interval. Past that time interval, these "virtual particles" cannot exist in the real universe unless another equivalent mass nearby ceases to exist. (This idea is the basis of the theory that black holes "evaporate"; virtual particle/antiparticle pairs occur right at the event horizon, with the particle outside the event horizon and the antiparticle inside. Under the right circumstances, the particle can escape the event horizon, in effect exiting the black hole, while the antiparticle goes into the black hole and reduces its mass, in effect "evaporating" the black hole a particle at a time.) The upshot of this is that, in a sense, the law of conservation of mass can be locally violated, but only for the Planck time (about 5.39 x 10^-44 second, or enough time for light to travel one-billion trillionth the diameter of a proton). After that time, the books must be balanced again, so to speak. So the idea of God creating everything out of nothing is still hogwash, and quantum physics says nothing to bolster that particular sectarian false doctrine.

What does this mean? Do you believe that God said, "Let there be particles and atoms" and ZAP! they were there?

I consider this distinction meaningless. Suppose a community of the protoapes/protohominids were found alive and well today. How would they be classified? Without any doubt, they would be classified as apes. Most anthropologists that I have heard do not contend that humans evolved from the ape; rather, they contend that humans are a type of ape. Biologically, this seems an undeniable truism, considering (for example) that chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to gorillas or orangutans.

A conversation from a few years ago: NEW FRIENDS JUST MOVED IN FROM UTAH: ...and I always hated it when people would say "oh my heck!" VORT: Hey! I just found something out a week or two ago! Do you know why Utahans say "Oh my heck"? NFJMIFU: Uh...no. Why? V: It's because they don't want to say "Oh my hell!" Hahahahaha!! NFJMIFU: ????? (confused looks) V: No! Seriously! I'm not making this up! The original phrase was, "Oh my hell!" So instead, they say "Oh my heck!" NFJMIFU: Well...yes, we know that. Doesn't everyone know that? V: Oh. You do? Oh. Well. Uh...OK. It was news to me. Just thought it sounded kind of funny. NFJMIFU: ... V: ... NFJMIFU: So, do you follow the Jazz at all?

You seem to have Solomon confused with Oedipus.

Ironic, then, that Carter was in training to be a newkewlar power plant operator aboard a newkewlar sub while he was in the Navy.

This.

Spokane: spo - CAN Puyallup: pew - AL - up Sequim: skwim Yakima: YA - kim - ah Reading: RED - ing

Easterners have a good time with Washington city names, too. I heard Spokane pronounced Spo-Cain, Puyallup pronounced pie-allup, Sequim pronounced see-kwim, Yakima pronounced ya-KEE-muh...you get the picture. But it doesn't bother me. On the contrary, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who messes these things up. When I married my wife, we played a game of Monopoly, and she laughed heartily at my pronunciation of Reading Railroad as "reeding". Hey, how was I supposed to know?

The "conflicting commandments" theory is untenable; it requires us to believe that 1 Ne 3:7 is false, and that God will willingly put us in a position where the Godly thing to do is to disobey God and obey Satan. This is absurd on its face, and I will not accept it. (If a prophet teaches this doctrine as revealed truth, then I will accept it. Short of that, it's a stupid, anti-truth doctrine, explicitly contradicting both revealed scriptural truth and the plain meaning of words. I don't care who espouses it, it's false.) There are two main problems with viewing the partaking of the fruit as a straightforward sin: Lehi taught that if Adam had not transgressed, there would have been no Fall, and we know the Fall to be an essential part of the plan of salvation.Modern prophets have hedged mightily in calling Eve's action a "sin" in the regular sense, seeming to want to indicate that there was something not quite "sinful" in her action.Here is my theory, and how I respond to the two problems listed above: (Disclaimer: I have no intention of an in-depth discussion of temple teachings. However, the endowment ceremony itself clearly identifies which parts we are to keep strictly to ourselves. I will never reveal or discuss those matters, but beyond that, my understanding is that there is nothing wrong with talking of temple ordinances and such matters.) As is commonly known, the endowment offers a stylized presentation of Adam and Eve as a way of showing man's fallen state and the need for redemption. In discussing the plan to expose his first children to temptation, God says, "If they yield to temptation..." He then goes on to explain the contingency plan for this possibility. That phrase very clearly implies a second possibility: Maybe they won't yield to temptation. So what's on the other side of that "if"? Answer: We don't know. It's not presented to us -- probably because that's not the world we're living in. This argument is bolstered by the response put in Satan's mouth when his culpability is exposed: He attempts to justify himself by certain previous actions. I won't go into that any more, but anyone who has received his or her endowment should know exactly what I'm talking about. This strongly suggests that disobeying God is not the only way to gain these blessings. So how does this idea jibe with the problems noted above? Here are some possible answers: Maybe Lehi was not aware of this (relatively subtle) distinction between the cause of the Fall and the Fall itself. Perhaps what he meant to say was that if Adam and Eve had not partaken, there would have been no Fall. Obviously, Adam and Eve's partaking was done in transgression to God's direct commandment -- the scriptures are clear on this, and few will disagree. Lehi may not have been bothering to point out, or indeed may not even have been aware, that while our first parents did indeed transgress in partaking of the fruit, that need not always have been the case.Modern prophets teach in response to what is currently being taught.For example, Paul taught at length on the futility of works to gain salvation and the necessity of faith. Why? Probably because the people of his time, both Jews and Greeks, believed that religious ordinances such as animal or other sacrifices and celebratory observances somehow curried favor with their God or gods and built up a "reserve of righteousness" that would take them to their salvation. Paul pointed out in no uncertain terms that their piddling acts amounted to exactly nothing, and that salvation was available to them only through the atonement of Jesus. Yet today, we have (non-LDS) Christians openly teaching that works have no place whatsoever in our salvation, and that all we must do is proclaim our belief in and faith in Christ, and we too will have gained our salvation. This is a rank perversion of Paul's teachings -- yet without modern prophets and modern revelation to guide us, we might not realize that. Similarly, much Christian thought in the last thousand years has revolved around the culpability of Adam and Eve for the sinful world we live in, and their supposed filthiness in causing such chaos by their evil actions, opening Pandora's Box upon what would otherwise be a sinless and idyllic existence. Eve, especially, has been painted with this brush of evil, assigned personal responsibility for all our woes because of her partaking of the forbidden fruit. This is nonsense, of course. Adam was one of the greatest of all prophets through all ages, and Eve was a woman equal in spiritual stature and gifts to her husband. The story of the Fall is not designed to cast Adam and Eve in a bad light, but rather to illuminate our own situation in this sinful world. We, too, like Adam and Eve, are subject to all kinds of temptation, and we, too, on occasion yield to that temptation and suffer the consequences of it. It is my opinion that prophetic teaching about Adam and Eve is not because they did not truly sin, but because the world's perception of the Fall is so completely wrong. Now, this is just my own idea. I don't claim it's the whole truth. It is certainly not gospel doctrine. But neither is the idea, commonly taught in Church (even in Gospel Essentials), that Eve did a wonderful and noble thing in disobeying God and yielding to Satan. The scriptures themselves make it clear that her actions in that case were not viewed as a virtuous thing, even though the ultimate effects of that act clearly did tend toward God.

The problem here is not in the account, but in your expectations. You have falsely divided the dealings of God with man into "the New Testament of Jesus Christ" vs. "Old Testament punishments". You did not invent this wrong idea, of course. This artificial division has been promulgated by ignorant Christians, pseudoChristians, and non-Christians to suggest that Jesus somehow taught and altered the Law, changing the fundamental relationship between God and man. This is obviously false to any true Christian, of course, and not just Latter-day Saints -- although a surprising number of Saints also fall prey to this absurd teaching. The "New Testament Jesus Christ" is the same Being who meted out those "Old Testament punishments". When you make a covenant with God, you place yourself entirely in his hands. God showed great mercy to ancient Israel when they broke their covenant with him; instead of wiping them out, as they had earned, he simply gave them a law of outward ordinances, hoping over many generations to bring them back to himself. God acted in that way toward them for his own reasons, and he acts in mercy toward us for his own reasons. His justice may be eternal, but it does not look the same to us, nor should it. Ananias and Saphira had explicitly covenanted to live a (for lack of a better term) "united order"-type life. They were not forced into this; they entered it of their own free will and choice. As Peter pointed out, in "stealing" from everyone else in the covenant, they were in fact stealing from God. Having disobeyed a much higher law, they were subject to a much graver consequence. The deaths of these two demonstrate (at least) two scriptural truths: Where much is given, much is required. (See Luke 12:48)God will not be mocked. (See Galatians 6:7, D&C 63:58, among many other scriptures)

Of course it does. Those who say otherwise simply demonstrate they don't understand the teachings of Jesus that they reference.

Not to derail this thread, but I believe LS's comment is naïve. Of course we judge others, especially when we're dating. That's what dating is -- a chance to make a judgment about the other person. No, we don't mentally classify that person as a child of hell or some such, but we do make a judgment about whether we want to spend time with that person. If someone decides that the person he or she is dating doesn't meet expectations -- whether that's because of past sins, present circumstances, or any other important or trivial reason -- well, that's his or her right. You aren't required to marry someone you don't want to marry, even if your reason is that she's fat or his breath smells funny, or that you don't want to deal with his heroin addiction recovery or her past sexual involvement. One thing that has bothered me about this thread is the insistence that a few have that such-and-such a young man is not "better than" a given young lady. What does this even mean? That the young man is not worth more to God than the young lady? That's obviously true. Or that the young man is not more justified before God than the young lady? Well, how on earth would anyone know that? It's entirely possible that the young man is "better", in that sense, than the young lady. Telling her otherwise does not a bit of good. Ironically, those who proclaim "Judge not!" the loudest often end up being those who most openly pass judgment. The appropriate response is not to say, "In God's eyes, So-and-so is no better than you or me." You cannot possibly make such a judgment. A better response would be to say, "So-and-so seems like a virtuous young man; good for him! If you're looking to better yourself, people like him are probably the people you want to be around. Go on a date with him and have fun!"

In my experience, it is always better to "date up". Hope your date goes/went well.

Annamaureen, You are not the first to be concerned about this; many share your feelings. My first impulse is to think something like, "Why on earth would anyone worry about something that doesn't have anything to do with us here, today, and will not affect us at all until (at least) the next life, when our perspective might be totally different?" But I resist that first impulse because of an observation I have made. Interestingly, when someone is seriously concerned about this idea to the point of threatening a testimony of the gospel, in my experience that person is always a woman. I know many men, myself included, who have no interest in polygamy but who instead are perfectly happy with our one wife. Nevertheless, polygamy does not feel threatening to men like it does to some women. Why is this? I don't really know. For men, marriage is about intimacy, whether emotional, spiritual, or physical (which are not separate areas in a man's mind, but merely different peaks of the same mountain range). I assume it is similar with women, but I have never really gotten a crystal clear understanding of this point from my wife, mother, or sisters. Perhaps to a man, the idea of having another wife (or wives) doesn't suggest to him a loss of intimacy with his first wife, any more than having more than one child means he will love his first child less. But from the woman's perspective, it might indeed look like a potential loss of intimacy, since this most private of relationships is no longer exclusively between her and her husband. Or maybe it's something else; I really don't know. Analysis aside, let me draw a comparison. When my sister was very young, perhaps six or so, she found out about sex and was thoroughly disgusted by the idea. It bothered her greatly, to the point that she didn't want even to think about marrying. It was not until she was well into her teenage years that she could even think about the idea without revulsion. But when she entered adulthood, her perspective changed, and she began to see that what she thought was ugly and awful was in fact nothing of the sort. The relationship between a man and a woman had facets that, as a child, she could not grasp and was not ready to contemplate. Simply growing up made everything clear. Just maybe, polygamy is a similar thing. In this life, we are immature and spiritually short-sighted. To us, in our present state, polygamy doesn't look like anything wonderful or even tolerable. It looks ugly and gross. But we see only from a limited, mortal, carnal perspective. It is possible that, given an eternal view and the understanding of eternal life that we will eventually gain, our whole attitude toward polygamy and the marriage relationship will alter, deepen, and mature, and we will shake our heads and wonder how we could ever not have seen how obvious, natural, and beautiful such a marriage relationship is. Or maybe not. I'm just saying let's suppose. In the end, it's nothing you have to worry about now. You aren't required to live polygamy; on the contrary, it's a grievous sin. So whatever happens after this life, happens. Leave it there. In the here and now, polygamy is no part of your existence or your marriage, nor will it be. So don't worry about it. Perhaps God's answer is, "I am not going to reveal my mind to you at this time. You are my beloved daughter, and my plan for you is designed to bring you more joy and happiness than you are even capable of understanding. For now, let that be enough. When the time is right, you will know and understand all you need to know and understand. Until then, leave it alone."

I made no assumptions about your motive, as I'm sure you had no nefarious intent. And I am not actually requesting anything. My question was sincere -- though perhaps out of place and a thread derailment.

I agree with Beefche. Go out, have fun, don't bother with talking about deep-dark secrets. The time may come for that, and when it does, be courageous and honest. Until that time, just enjoy your time together and work on becoming the woman you want to be. I can guarantee you that he has not yet arrived at being the man he wants to be. We're all fellow travelers, some further along the path and some not as far. As long as you're striving to do what you should do, you have no need to be ashamed.

On the contrary, MoE wrote: Then he made the point by rattling off leadership positions as proof of the second husband's greater apparent worthiness than the first.

Why is serving in leadership positions the shibboleth of faithful Sainthood for men? I have never understood this. Illustrating a man's faithfulness in the Church invariably is done by naming off his leadership callings. What if he never serves in a leadership calling in his life? What if he faithfully attends his meetings, pays his tithing, goes to the temple, and at 60 is still "just" an elder? Ought his wife decide that she married the wrong guy, since he's clearly a loser? After all, he never held a leadership position. I'm using MoE's post to illustrate this, but it certainly is not just him. In fact, I can find any number of general conference talks where General Authorities do the same thing. Are we to understand that the leaders of the Church are actually the very best of men in the Church, and that leadership callings are indeed a legitimate way of gauging male faithfulness? If so, does the inverse apply -- those men who never hold leadership callings are the weak and faithless of the Saints? If not, what are we to make of the constant use of leadership callings as examples of faithfulness?