Connie

Thanks everyone. I agree that when used in the proper way it's great. That's a really great point, skippy, we read our own emotion into the posts. I like that, and it is true in so many cases. But when someone is sincerely asking a question they want answers to, answering with sarcasm makes light of their question. It says, "boy what a dumb question, it doesn't deserve a kind answer." In my opinion anyway. And when you disagree with someone's post, answering with sarcasm conveys anger and bitterness, as i said before. I have a hard time imagining Christ using sarcasm at all and especially in these situations. I can't think of a single recorded instance of Him using it. I don't see sarcasm as a very Christ-like way to talk. It can be fun in some situations, but it's not in the situations i mentioned fun at all. If we are truly trying to be like Christ and follow Him, we will be careful about when and how we use sarcasm. Hope i'm not belaboring the point, i'll shutup now.

First let me say, i have no wish to offend anyone. I have learned so much from so many good people on this site. But i wish to offer some advice about sarcasm. I grew up in a family that did not use sarcasm very much. We said what we meant and we meant what we said. Sarcasm was pretty much lost on me for a long time. My husband, however, grew up with a main diet of sarcasm, so when i married him i gained an appreciation of sorts for it. Sarcasm, IMO, is very much over used today. Glenn Beck is a good example. While i really appreciate his social commentary and loved his first book, his sarcasm is a huge turn off for me. He takes it too far. Now i know a lot of people on this site use sarcasm. I get a huge laugh out of some of those comments, a lot of them are great. But i see it being over used more and more. At its worst, sarcasm conveys anger and bitterness, and this is why i offer this caution. Please be very careful how you use sarcasm. Know that there are thick-headed people out there (like me) on whom sarcasm is lost, and they will take you seriously. Sarcasm is one of those things that IMO should be used sparingly. God bless! I know i will probably get a lot of sarcastic remarks for this post, so i'll do my laughing now, hahahahaha!

If only we could all talk to each other in such ways! I think the point really is to see people as people as the book The Anatomy of Peace points out. I can see how self-esteem can be an issue, too. If you don't love yourself how can you love others?

Welcome! Congrats on your baptism! :)

Welcome, Sara, hope you enjoy the site. :)

Thanks, DigitalShadow, that's a very interesting read, even though i only read through the first 2 sections so far (such big psychology words i'm gonna have to take it in very slowly to get it through my thick skull). I especially like this sentence: People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.[ Very interesting stuff.

"Okay, first of all," Lou began, "I asked whether it makes a difference in a conflict if one side is in the right and the other in the wrong. So I ask you again: doesn't that matter?" "Yes," Yusuf replied, "it does matter. But not the way you think it does." "What is that supposed to mean?" "Well, Lou," Yusuf responded measuredly, "have you ever been in a conflict with someone who thought he was wrong?"... "No," he answered coolly. "But that doesn't mean they're not." "True," Yusuf agreed. "But you see, no conflict can be solved so long as all parties are convinced they are right. Solution is possible only when at least one party begins to consider how he might be wrong." "But what if I'm not wrong!" Lou blurted. "If you are not wrong, then you will be willing to consider how you might be mistaken." This little snippet comes from a book called The Anatomy of Peace: Resolving the Heart of Conflict (pg. 56) by The Arbinger Institute (really good, by the way, everyone should read it). I read this last night and thought it very interesting. It made me think of some recent threads i've noticed. So, why do some people take it personally when someone disagrees with their ideas? Isn't an idea an idea and a person a person? So, if we all think ourselves right, why arn't we more willing to consider how we might be wrong? Discuss.

The only difference i can think of is one is for "time and all eternity" and the other is "'til death do you part." which makes me wonder why my sister thinks she will be with her husband in the after life when they will part at death.

Excellent posts fellas! I personally would be more interested to know what you find romantic that your wives do for you.

I feel the same way. :)

Welcome, Liber. You are hilarious! :)

Welcome, ynaldoza. :)

Welcome. Congratulations! :)

Welcome. :)

Christ suffered in place of us, what else is there to know?

My understanding is that it's not mercy that makes justice "take a backseat," it's the atonement. As in Alma 42:15, it's the atonement that "appeases the demands of justice" and "brings to pass the plan of mercy." Christ suffered for our sins, thus satisfying justice which says "someone has to pay" and bringing about mercy if we accept his sacrifice. But as in Alma 12:33-34, we have "claim on mercy" only through accepting Christ's atonement--repenting and following Christ. Alma 42:23, "mercy cometh BECAUSE of the atonement." Therefore, if we don't accept the atonement, then we get the full demands of justice.

Hey, fent, thanks for letting me debate some of these ideas with you. I have learned a lot. I apologize if you felt any undue friction. I, myself, have felt very little friction and had many very friendly feelings toward you. :) The technology today is so much greater than at any other time in history. This is an obvious statement, i know, but because the technology is more advanced, there is greater capacity for evil (as well as for good). The power to enslave and kill is so much greater. This is a big part of the reason i believe we are in the most wicked age of the world. It really is just a matter of time. And as things grow and spread at a capacity far greater than at any other time due to the technology, perhaps in time you will concede, too, that this indeed is the worst it has ever been.

My favorite book on simplification is Simplify: A Guide to Caring for the Soul by Carolyn J. Rasmus. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in simplifying their life.

I have four children. We live in a small home with just 2 bedrooms. I have 2 girls and 2 boys, they are all young, the oldest 7 and the youngest 1. I think that living in this close space has strengthened us as a family. It can be difficult at times, but i often think of Joseph Smith growing up and how he and all his siblings (which was much more than 4) slept in the same room and how close they were as a family. Just know that it is possible but it does take some sacrifice and selflessness--give and take. I hope all goes well with your 4th delivery!

I'll vote for you, too, Misshalfway! Excellent post! fent: i'm super glad you can maintain those ideas that i have not disputed. Yes, sin can thrive just fine under the surface and even grow to a certain extent. In fact, it has to get to a certain strength before it can come above the surface. Again, my point is that once above the surface it grows and spreads and gets even stronger. I don't see my example as a special case at all. This is what happens when a sin is institutionalized by both culture and government. There are many cases of this throughout history, such as slavery as seen in any civilization. In fact, the slavery of the African people that we are most familiar with is a really good example when you look at how it spread from Portugal and Spain to England and thence to North and South America. Perhaps the only thing special in my example is that the Jews were eradicated instead of enslaved, but even that is not uncommon. "By small and simple things are great things brought to pass." And it works both ways--for both good and evil. I realize this is a Book of Mormon reference, but it is hard to keep myself from LDS theology as it's a big part of who i am. Saying that sin has "always been there" makes light of it, in my opinion. For what our attitude toward sin SHOULD be, please see Misshalfway's post. There is so much good in the world. "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things" (see 2 Nephi 2, yes another Book of Mormon reference). It's important we are presented the choice. It's too bad our culture has come to focus so heavily on the negative and to flaunt it so widely and openly. That sometimes makes it hard to see the good and positive, but it is out there if we are determined to find it. :)

Thank you Tamra. That example is even more powerful when you examine what types of shows were running in the 1950s as compared to now. When a sin is brought "above the surface," it becomes more socially accepted. Therefore, fewer people view it as sin (even though God continues to view it as such). Therefore, it grows and spreads. Here is an example that i think all my non-LDS friends can understand (hopefully): You have Germany in the early 1900s. Okay. In Germany, there was much anti-Jew thought. It was "below the surface" to use fent's phrase. Just a general hatred of Jews. When Hitler brought it "above the surface" did it just continue at the same level it was prior? No! It grew and spread until there were how many millions of Jews dead!? I could be wrong on this, but i think that statistics take into account things like population growth. We all know crime rates and divorce rates are much higher now than in the 1950s, not that they were ideal then either. But hopefully you see my point. I believe the divorce rate in the 1950s was 1 in 5 and now it's more than half. I don't see that population growth has anything to do with that, but divorce is more socially accepted and, therefore, anyone can divorce anyone for any little reason. I do believe that there is more wickedness in the world today. But i also believe there is a great amount of good. I do not believe a righteous people is one in which sin is ignored. What would have happened had we ignored Hitler?

I'm sorry you have chosen to take offense. I really and truly did not direct my comments to you. I simply quoted your words to show the opposite perspective and make sure people understood where my thoughts were coming from. I don't know what else to say other than the truth of what i was really thinking as i made my post. I feel i've done that to the best of my ability. If you still choose to take offense, then that is your choice and there is nothing i can do for that.

That's nice. I don't care what you believe. I was simply stating my opinion to give others a different perspective. I meant no insult to you personally.

I disagree. I think this age is much more wicked than previously. The kingdom of Satan is growing. It's the last days, we've been told that it will get worse. But the kingdom of God is also growing. The good and the bad have to grow together. I also disagree that righteous societies are where people ignore sin. The best example of a righteous society i know of is the city of Enoch, and they rooted out the wickedness until they were taken to heaven.

The fundamental doctrine of the church to me is "Follow the prophet."