Jamie123

No...this is *not* more drivel about the Flat Earth people and how Antarctica is really a giant ice-wall holding the oceans in and spilling out into...well presumably into Nifelheim and the roots of Ygdrassil (if you're into that sort of thing).
 
This is something far more important...
 
The fact is that Antarctic exploration makes me VERY angry!
 
Why? Well there are two very important reasons...
 
Firstly because Roald Amundsen ate his dogs!
 
They were nice cute husky dogs that anyone else would have been glad to have for a pet. Good, loyal, faithful, hard-working dogs who pulled his sleds all the way to the south pole, allowing him to beat Scott (who despite his poor organization played things fair as far as doggy-woof-woofs went). And how did that Norwegian git repay them? By using them not only as a source of propulsion but also as a source of food.
 
He and his men ate almost the whole lot of them! While Scott was freezing and Oats was going out for "some time", the Norwegians were stuffing themselves with husky-burgers and fries! Amundsen brought only ONE dog back to Norway. You can see it today, stuffed in a museum in Olso. 
 
If you ask me Amundsen should be disqualified, and the credit given to Scott instead! 
 
(Please excuse me while I go and grind my teeth.)
 
But there's another reason as well...
 
When I was 10 years old, my teacher (I'll call him Mr. Keswick - which is very nearly his name) told us the story of Robert Falcon Scott, and how he used horses to pull his sleds to the pole. I asked him why he didn't use mechanical tractors to pull the sleds. Mr. Keswick looked at me and said "For goodness sake this was in 1910! Did they have mechanical tractors then?"
 
Now I had no idea whether they had mechanical tractors in 1910, but the class was already looking at me with amusement, so instead of confessing my ignorance I said "no". Mr.Keswick then led the whole class in a good old laugh at "stupid old Jamie".
 
Well, that summer, when our family was on holiday, I was given some spending money by my Ma and Da which I used to buy a book about Antarctic exploration. (I bought a book on dinosaurs too, but that doesn't come into this story.) On the centre pages it had a cut-out penguin which you made to stand up by pasting it to a toilet roll middle. It also had the story of Scott's and Amundsen's expeditions and - in the middle of one page was a picture of a vehicle with caterpillar tracks, and a caption underneath reading "Motorized sled used by Scott on his 1910 expedition to the south pole!"
 
Check it out here: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/image/?imageId=images-18720&profile=access
 
So Scott DID attempt to use "tractors". He had two of them. Admittedly neither of them reached the South Pole, but my question had been quite valid! Despite the teacher-induced snickering all around the classroom, it wasn't "stupid old Jamie" at all. It was "stupid old Mr. Keswick!"
 
So I got a train straight back home, went to Mr.Keswick's house, grabbed him by the front of his shirt, pushed the picture in his face and shouted "Look at this, Mush! Who's stupid now???!!!"
 
Well ... OK so the last bit of the story is pure fantasy but I certainly did it in my head!

Jamie, I hope we live next door to each other in the next life. You would be a hoot to get to know better.

A thought:

How much of this stuff can you watch, how often can you try to take such people seriously and examine their claims without prejudice, before you mentally throw out the whole lot of them and simply paint anyone with claims sounding like that as a crank?
 
Perhaps many have investigated religion and come to the same sort of conclusion, classifying any religious person as a nut. Their prejudice blinds them to what we have to offer, but on the other hand, it's a little hard to blame them totally for their blindness.

No...this is *not* more drivel about the Flat Earth people and how Antarctica is really a giant ice-wall holding the oceans in and spilling out into...well presumably into Nifelheim and the roots of Ygdrassil (if you're into that sort of thing).
 
This is something far more important...
 
The fact is that Antarctic exploration makes me VERY angry!
 
Why? Well there are two very important reasons...
 
Firstly because Roald Amundsen ate his dogs!
 
They were nice cute husky dogs that anyone else would have been glad to have for a pet. Good, loyal, faithful, hard-working dogs who pulled his sleds all the way to the south pole, allowing him to beat Scott (who despite his poor organization played things fair as far as doggy-woof-woofs went). And how did that Norwegian git repay them? By using them not only as a source of propulsion but also as a source of food.
 
He and his men ate almost the whole lot of them! While Scott was freezing and Oats was going out for "some time", the Norwegians were stuffing themselves with husky-burgers and fries! Amundsen brought only ONE dog back to Norway. You can see it today, stuffed in a museum in Olso. 
 
If you ask me Amundsen should be disqualified, and the credit given to Scott instead! 
 
(Please excuse me while I go and grind my teeth.)
 
But there's another reason as well...
 
When I was 10 years old, my teacher (I'll call him Mr. Keswick - which is very nearly his name) told us the story of Robert Falcon Scott, and how he used horses to pull his sleds to the pole. I asked him why he didn't use mechanical tractors to pull the sleds. Mr. Keswick looked at me and said "For goodness sake this was in 1910! Did they have mechanical tractors then?"
 
Now I had no idea whether they had mechanical tractors in 1910, but the class was already looking at me with amusement, so instead of confessing my ignorance I said "no". Mr.Keswick then led the whole class in a good old laugh at "stupid old Jamie".
 
Well, that summer, when our family was on holiday, I was given some spending money by my Ma and Da which I used to buy a book about Antarctic exploration. (I bought a book on dinosaurs too, but that doesn't come into this story.) On the centre pages it had a cut-out penguin which you made to stand up by pasting it to a toilet roll middle. It also had the story of Scott's and Amundsen's expeditions and - in the middle of one page was a picture of a vehicle with caterpillar tracks, and a caption underneath reading "Motorized sled used by Scott on his 1910 expedition to the south pole!"
 
Check it out here: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/image/?imageId=images-18720&profile=access
 
So Scott DID attempt to use "tractors". He had two of them. Admittedly neither of them reached the South Pole, but my question had been quite valid! Despite the teacher-induced snickering all around the classroom, it wasn't "stupid old Jamie" at all. It was "stupid old Mr. Keswick!"
 
So I got a train straight back home, went to Mr.Keswick's house, grabbed him by the front of his shirt, pushed the picture in his face and shouted "Look at this, Mush! Who's stupid now???!!!"
 
Well ... OK so the last bit of the story is pure fantasy but I certainly did it in my head!

Energy (or work) per unit time.

"Middle state" makes me think of Alexander Pope:
 
 
 
So is it the great benefit or the great curse of mankind...to be more than a beast but less than a god?

My father, a wise and grave man, gave me serious and excellent counsel against what he foresaw was my design. [The young Robinson Crusoe wanted to go to sea.] He called me one morning into his chamber, where he was confined by the gout, and expostulated very warmly with me upon this subject: he asked me what reasons more than a mere wandering inclination I had for leaving my father’s house and my native country, where I might be well introduced, and had a prospect of raising my fortune by application and industry, with a life of ease and pleasure. He told me it was for men of desperate fortunes on one hand, or of aspiring superior fortunes on the other, who went abroad upon adventures, to rise by enterprise, and make themselves famous in undertakings of a nature out of the common road; that these things were all either too far above me, or too far below me; that mine was the middle state, or what might be called the upper station of low life, which he had found by long experience was the best state in the world, the most suited to human happiness, not exposed to the miseries and hardships, the labour and sufferings of the mechanic part of mankind, and not embarrassed with the pride, luxury, ambition, and envy of the upper part of mankind, he told me, I might judge of the happiness of this state by this one thing, viz. that this was the state of life which all other people envied; that kings have frequently lamented the miserable consequences of being born to great things, and wish they had been placed in the middle of the two extremes, between the mean and the great; that the wise man gave his testimony to this as the just standard of true felicity, when he prayed to have neither poverty nor riches.
 
He bid me observe it, and I should always find, that the calamities of life were shared among the upper and lower part of mankind; but that the middle station had the fewest disasters, and was not exposed to so many vicissitudes as the higher or lower part of mankind; nay, they were not subjected to so many distempers and uneasinesses, either of body or mind, as those were, who by vicious living, luxury, and extravagances, on one hand, or by hard labour, want of necessaries, and mean or insufficient diet, on the other hand, bring distempers upon themselves by the natural consequences of their way of living; that the middle station of life was calculated for all kind of virtues and all kind of enjoyments; that peace and plenty were the handmaids of a middle fortune; that temperance, moderation, quietness, health, society, all agreeable diversions, and all desirable pleasures, were the blessings attending the middle station of life; that this way men went silently and smoothly through the world, and comfortably out of it, not embarrassed with the labours of the hands or of the head, not sold to the life of slavery for daily bread, or harassed with perplexed circumstances, which rob the soul of peace, and the body of rest; not enraged with the passion of envy, or secret burning lust of ambition for great things; but in easy circumstances sliding gently through the world, and sensibly tasting the sweets of living, without the bitter, feeling that they are happy, and learning by every day’s experience to know it more sensibly.

I've always liked this passage from Roald Dahl's The Twits:
 

Or this...

I think this captures a lot of truth:

A.A. Milne wrote a brilliant poem about procrastination. This is me all over...
 

A.A. Milne wrote a brilliant poem about procrastination. This is me all over...
 

^ my solution.

I realize I have probably harped on this topic before. So I apologize in advance if some of you dislike it. I invite you to ignore the thread.
 
A commonly heard preaching is that we don't have to worry about being perfect. All we have to do is do our best, and that's good enough.
 
NEWS FLASH: I never do my best. Never. Not once in my life. I could always have done better.
 
Oh, sure, there may be an isolated instance here or there where I did the best I could, like taking a test or playing a game or listening closely.
 
But there has never been a full day of my life (at least, not since my very young childhood) where I have consistently done everything I did to the best of my ability. Not a day. I would go further: I bet there is not a single HOUR of my life where I have truly "done my best" during that time. Honestly, I do quite well to pass ten minutes doing my absolute best at whatever task I'm engaged in.
 
It seems to me that saying "All you have to do to be saved is your best" is exactly the same as saying "You cannot be saved". Anyone care to explain to me, in terms I can understand, why I'm wrong?

What do you think?
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-stop-procrastinating-start-by-understanding-whats-really-going-on-1441043167

I'll look at that article later.

If "she" did, that alone would be reason enough to take "her" up on it.
 
 
This does appear to be a problem for LDS men in particular. For all my flaws and failures, one thing I got right was in figuring out before I got married that I didn't want to "save" anyone, nor did I want anyone to "save" me (at least not in the person I was marrying).

Short answer: Go on your mission.
 
Long answer--
1)  She told you to do that. 
2)  You both have a lot of growing up to do still (I'm assuming you're still in HS).
3)  Just because she's lost faith for the moment doesn't mean she's going to end of pregnant with an abusive boyfriend (you are being completely ridiculous).
4)  Even if she wanted to get pregnant with an abusive boyfriend, that's HER choice and not yours.  You cannot "save" her from something she chooses.
5)  It's not like going on a mission disqualifies you from being her friend and emotionally supporting her.  
6)  July 2017 is a long way away and a lot can happen between now and then.  

This post reminds me of a discussion (involving me) concerning same sex sexual relationships.  The discussion was concerning possible "good" that could come to society.  I argued that the generation of life is good for human society and necessary for the human species to survive - since heterosexual sexual activity generates life there is good in that relationship that cannot be argued for same sex relationships - therefore we must recognize heterosexual sexual activity of more worth and value.
 
Adultery and rape were then brought into the question - and I responded that both adultery and rape have greater possibility for good and need to human society than same sex sexual activity because the need for creation of life is possible and that the meeting of that need is a greater good than sexual activity that cannot fulfill that need for humanity.  That is if we can define the creation of human life as "good".  If we disagree that human life is good then this particular argument does not hold.
 
In the case of this thread - the argument still holds - if pornography is used to fulfill sexuality then it does not contribute to the need to create human life and adultery and even rape would have a greater possibility for "good".  If we can agree that the creation of human life is good. 
 
If we are to argue that human life created through adultery and rape is not "good" then we can justify abortion to end such life.  Or even the extermination of living children that are the product of adultery and rape.  I believe human life is good and be treated as such even though the initial act was a mistake - the life such actions can produce and the goodness of that life - in my mind cannot be mitigated as evil and thus - rightfully ended.

I'm sorry to hear that a bishop would mock the ideas of another religion. That particular idea shouldn't be mocked, if for no other reason than it's LDS doctrine, as well. (Maybe not the "sitting around" part, but I doubt that's really the theological underpinning of the beliefs of other religions, either.)
 
Different times call for different emphases. I sometimes get irritated at the inordinate emphasis people give to certain ideas or doctrines. I have to remind myself of two things:
They are not at the same level of spiritual progression as I am. They may be behind (or ahead!) of me, and thus have a different view as to what is important. If I hope for people to be patient with me as I try to find my way spiritually, I should do no less for others. Different audiences require different ways of teaching. For an example of this latter point, consider the situation facing the apostle Paul: Many of his fellow Jews believed that their sacrifices and observations of religious rites alone actually cleansed them and made them fit to be in God's presence, while most of the Gentiles grew up believing a similar idea, that their rites and acts of worship to this or that god secured that god's favor.
 
To both groups, Paul had to preach in stark words that their petty, groveling works availed them absolutely nothing. If the Jews thought that they could earn their way to heaven by keeping the law of Moses, they had no idea what they were talking about, and had no good concept of what the law of Moses actually was. Same with the Gentiles. These groups needed to understand salvation by grace, by the will and kindness and sacrifice of God. They needed to learn that they were made holy by the Holy Spirit, not by keeping their step count low on Saturday.
 
But today, we are faced with a much different dynamic. Most Christians outside of Catholicism (and many within) have been raised with the idea of divine grace. They already understand and accept the concept. But in many such cases, they have perverted "grace" to mean something it never meant. In effect, they have taken the opposite extreme from the Jews and Gentiles of Paul's day: They (some of them) say that grace is everything, that salvation comes through God's will despite anything you may do. This is a clear perversion of the doctrine of grace, of course, and many non-LDS Christians readily acknowledge this. Nevertheless, this false doctrine is used as a club to bash "Mormonism" by claiming that we disbelieve the doctrine of grace.
 
Obviously, we don't reject the doctrine of grace. We simply reject the false doctrines of grace in favor of the true doctrine. So we emphasize "works", because it is through doing that we become, and what we are determines our standing before God. So while we teach the very same doctrine that Paul taught, our emphasis is different, because our audience has different presuppositions that must be addressed.

I pray because I like fellowship with God. He loves me and wants me to communicate with Him. He wants to give me answers, give me comfort, bless me and draw me closer to Himself. I pray to thank God for the many ways he blesses me. I pray for my needs and the needs of others.  I pray for help.  Most of the time I just pray because I like talking to God.  I know He hears me and cares about what I say/think.  So most of my prayer is just talk with God about random stuff, just like I talk to a friend.

Watching pornography drives innovation in video, audio, and tactile technology, which could be used to save lives and better the human condition (think complex remote surgery).
 
Saying that rape potentially adds value because it might result in the creation of life is offensive to most people, because it confounds the reality of the vile act. Any such human act can be found "good" based on its effects.
 
For example, an innocent man was brutally murdered a thousand years ago by an evil cabal, but because of the chain of actions set in motion by that murder, you and I stand here today. Without that murder, our particular DNA would not have ever been created. So therefore the foul murder of an innocent man was a good thing. Really? No, I reject that even my own existence in my present state is a high enough "good" for me to allow that wicked past actions were somehow beneficial.

Not on a literal level, but I think I see what Jamie is driving at. Sex is a shared activity; porn consumption and masturbation are not. Sex is a natural activity, even fornication. Not that "natural" is always a good or worthy thing, but there is something unnatural about solitary pornography. it's an isolating activity that makes solo something that is designed to be shared. There seems to be in that a special kind of perversion of God's creation.

I haven't read all the messages on this thread (there are a lot) so someone may already have come up with this; but I can see one way in which adultery is preferable to porn.
 
The viewing of porn (which is usually accompanied by masturbation) is a purely selfish act. As C.S. Lewis said, it...
 
 
Actual physical adultery does have the advantage of requiring an act of giving/sacrifice to another. It is thus not entirely selfish. (Mostly selfish, I dare say, but not entirely.)
 
Having said that, I can imagine real adultery creating messier and harder-to-get-out-of situations. It is (speaking purely physically) less easy to step away from. Pornographic magazines, once disposed of do not usually return to haunt you. They don't talk to newspaper reporters or demand blackmail money, as a spurned ex-lover might.

I haven't read all the messages on this thread (there are a lot) so someone may already have come up with this; but I can see one way in which adultery is preferable to porn.
 
The viewing of porn (which is usually accompanied by masturbation) is a purely selfish act. As C.S. Lewis said, it...
 
 
Actual physical adultery does have the advantage of requiring an act of giving/sacrifice to another. It is thus not entirely selfish. (Mostly selfish, I dare say, but not entirely.)
 
Having said that, I can imagine real adultery creating messier and harder-to-get-out-of situations. It is (speaking purely physically) less easy to step away from. Pornographic magazines, once disposed of do not usually return to haunt you. They don't talk to newspaper reporters or demand blackmail money, as a spurned ex-lover might.