Vort

Did you factor in the amount you pay in taxes for the government-subsidized health care?

rameumptom, I would love it if you could provide a citation for President Packer's comments. I've long held that women hold the priesthood and would like to add this to my arsenal of evidence.MoE's comment is a perfect example of someone who decides what he wants to believe, then goes searching for evidence of his pet doctrine. Rameumptom has misinterpreted both the sealing ordinance and President Packer's teachings. Women do not "hold the Priesthood". They are an indispensible part of the highest order of the Priesthood, but they do not hold the Priesthood. All of the MoEs in the world stamping their feet and insisting that women actually do hold the Priesthood won't change the fact. God is shamelessly politically incorrect.

I'll live to be 102! Thank heavens there's no age penalty for lying on a test.

Nothing. We have known for generations that we do not live in a deterministic universe. (This was at first perceived as a threat to religionists -- God must not be in charge after all! Absurd, of course, but the media will always express any scientific principle as a threat to the established religious order(s), whether it is or not.) Most religions implicitly reject Calvinistic predestination; Joseph Smith certainly taught that it was false. The actions of quantum-mechanical particles can be "chunked" into broader atomic and molecular properties, which can be "chunked" into the (macroscopic) properties of bulk materials, which can be "chunked" into system interactions that we observe, and so on up the line. Concepts like agency and "free will" are many levels of chunking up from the actions of quantum-mechanical particles. In my view, no straight line can be drawn between base-level concepts like quantum state and high-level concepts like free will.

Men think "shop" is a noun, modified by the adjectives "metal" and "wood". Women think "shop" is a verb, modified by the adverbs "often" and "daily". Women are complex: They want a rock who's soft and cuddly; a pillar of strength who shows his vulnerabilities; a down-to-earth genius; a modest Adonis; a straight arrow who gets wild -- but ONLY when she wants him to.Men are simple: They want a nymphomaniacal gymnast. Men get fat in their 40s and joke about their beer bellies. When they want to lose weight, they stop eating for a week, drop 20 pounds, and say, "What's all the fuss about?"Women get fat in their 40s and obsess about their thunder thighs. When they want to lose weight, they join programs, talk incessantly with their girlfriends, get depressed because they aren't losing weight, and eat a carton of ice cream to console themselves. Men love their children, and sometimes even remember their names by the second try. Women want to throttle the little monsters, while remembering that Susie wants the crusts cut off her peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches, Joey can only sleep with the hall light on and the door halfway closed, and Sally wets her bed unless you tell her a story and sing "Eensy Weensy Spider" twice. Men never, even complain about their wife's "time of the month." Secretly, it terrifies them. They're just glad that they don't have to put up with it.Women always, constantly complain about their "time of the month." Secretly, it delights them. They always have a built-in excuse to get grouchy about anything, anytime, with absolutely no consequences. Women think that men are humiliated to buy feminine hygiene products, so they send them on an "errand" to the store at least every couple of months.Men claim to be humiliated to buy feminine hygiene products, but in fact they don't care a bit -- is someone really going to think they're buying it for themselves? They just don't want to leave their TV show. But going to the store is a good excuse to pick up a candy bar and some nachos. Women hate dealing with car issues like tires and oil. They'd much rather talk on the phone for an hour.Men hate having to talk on the phone. They'd much rather change tires and oil for an hour.

Ah, yes, those intense aikido competitions! Oh. Oops. My bad. Never mind.

Judo, considering BJJ if I can swing the cost and the time commitment. Would like to train MMA...

How do you respond to the mathematical conclusion I proposed exposing the flaw in your mathematical conclusion?

Bearing children == being righteous? Men need to "repay" women for childbirth? Strange new doctrines, indeed.

Ah, yes. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. Behold the fruits of the hatred of males. Just keep teaching your daughters that men are intrinsically inferior to them, and pretty soon an entire generation of women will grow up saying such things. Oh, wait. We're already there.

Hatred toward men and dismissive patronization toward women. Sorry, you're talking entirely too much sense to be part of this thread.

Speak for yourself, nitwit. :) Seriously, I like you, Faded, and I think you have many helpful ideas and insights. But in this, you're full of, well, let's just say baloney. These are poisonous falsehoods that I refuse to teach to my sons or daughters. "Sorry, son, but you know that you and your brothers are just by nature less righteous than your sisters." "Sorry, daughter, but your fate is to be mated to someone who is intrinsically inferior to you." Toxic lies. I pity those who believe them. Your reasoning is bogus, too. We know that children who die before the age of accountability are exalted, and we know that historically there are about 106 boys born for every 100 girls. Yet by the time they are 8 or 10, the numbers are the same. Why? Because boys die off faster than girls; they are more susceptible to disease and developmental disorders. Ergo, there will be a HUGE excess of men (i.e. dead baby boys) in the celestial kingdom. Sort of blows your theory out of the water, huh?

I am so sorry to hear this. Please go talk to your bishop immediately. Take your husband, or if he won't go, go without him. You need guidance and encouragement.

Ah, I see. I know nothing about that. President Young cared a great deal about the plight of women, so my guess is that he was much more willing to grant a divorce request from a woman, who would generally have stood to gain less and lose more from such an action than a man. But whether my speculation is correct or not, and whether or not President Young was liberal in granting permission to divorce, I would point out that such an action is a far cry from "having no problem" with divorce.

Believing Satan to be a "good witch" doesn't have anything to do with denial of the Holy Ghost.

What do you mean? On the contrary, of all his many marriages, I only know of one that ended in divorce, and that was because the wife left him on her own volition. Doesn't sound to me like someone who "didn't have any difficulty with divorce". Or are you of the opinion that anyone who experiences divorce must therefore "have no problem" with it? In talking with friends and family who have experienced divorce, I get a much different picture.

You have this 180° backward. The polygamous Saints enfranchised their women; the nation took the vote away, and only restored it years later.

In John 17:12, Jesus refers to Judas Iscariot as "the son of perdition" when praying; see also 3 Nephi 27:32. D&C 76 defines those who will be lost, and verse 31 starts, "They are they who are the sons of perdition". The use of the plural indicates that there will be more than just one. As I recall, Elder McConkie did not share your opinion about the miniscule number of those who will be lost.

No. Of course, if that's what he's shooting for.

What does that mean? Does it make a difference if Moe is called as a prophet of God and ordained by the hand of God to that position? How much money do you suppose it costs a Mormon to buy forgiveness from his bishop? Suppose "the forgiveness process of God" specifies that a man act as voice for God's will. What of your model then?

Clearly, ewe dew knot C.

I find much "Christian" music an embarrassment to listen to, and you've touched on the reason why. Specifically, popular music is largely designed around light love songs, appropriate for singing to your new girlfriend (boyfriend) or maybe your wife (husband) at certain times. Grafting into that the idea of profound love for God, for our Savior, is absurd. "Oh sweet Jesus, hear me please / I want you for my main squeeze." I Don't Think So.

No idea on the Church's stance -- frankly, I'd be surprised if it HAD a stance on this issue -- but I can certainly give you my point of view. :) Give it two years and see what happens. Skin is an absolutely amazing organ. You will likely find that much of your "loose" skin folds tighten right up if you just stay in shape and give it time. I would not be a bit surprised if, six months to a year from now, you find that your skin once again fits you perfectly. Of course, it's possible that some extra skin might remain even after a year or two. If that's the case, then in my opinion there is nothing overly vain or sinful about having it excised. However, if you were my wife, I'd advise against it and ask you not to do it, since I don't believe it's worth the surgical risk.

Insightful, worthwhile article. All or most of what he writes is spot-on. Most "Christian"-branded products that I have experienced -- music, novels, poetry -- are mediocre or worse. This is equally true of "LDS"-branded stuff, by the way. The best and most successful of the genre (e.g. Charly, Saturday's Warrior) is lightweight, a bit fluffy, easy to digest, and somewhat generic in principle and in scope, though it touches on meaningful issues that people care about (which is the "hook"). And there is nothing wrong with that at all; I'd rather have my children read Charly or watch Saturday's Warrior than any of a huge number of other possibilities that the world presents as reasonable alternatives for children. But truly great, profound, LDS-themed (or larger Christian-themed) works are few and very far between. There are many reasons for this: Talent distribution, talent development vs. life balance (LDS and, probably, Christians in general will tend to favor the latter over the former), acess to the highest echelons of creative thought (which tend to be extremely leftist), and so forth. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that the religious faithful tend to be quite conservative, by nature, while popular culture is always (almost by definition) pushing the envelope. Thus, religious people involved in pop culture are forever playing catch-up. An alternative to this, one that has been mentioned by LDS leaders many times, is that we give up the whole catch-up routine and simply create our own culture, make up our own rules for excellence, and DEFINE these trends. If they are good enough quality, the world at large will adopt at least some of them. If the world doesn't adopt them, who cares? It's not meant for them; it's meant for us.

Amazing. Brilliant. Beautiful.