HEthePrimate

FWIW, I like the "archaic" language of the King James Version--it's beautifully written. Of course it helps that I grew up reading that version, and understand that people who aren't used to the language might have trouble with it. So I have no problem with people who read more recent versions/translations, and sometimes read the NIV myself, as I was told by an Institute teacher who knows Greek and Hebrew that it's a more accurate translation. But for sheer beauty of expression, the KJV is excellent! (And what I'm used to, which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with it! )

(((Kartvines))) I'm so sorry about your loss. I'm a widower myself, and know how much it hurts. The death of a loved one affects different people in different ways. For you, it seems to be nudging you do attend church, and hopefully some comfort there. For me, it almost knocked me out of the Church, wondering how God could let such a horrible thing happen. But in the months following my wife's death, a kind and scholarly friend of mine listened to me and talked with me for hours on end about religion, philosophy, and God, and even though he was not pressuring me to keep attending church, I came away from that with a better understanding of God's character, and a renewed sense of His love, despite all the pain I was feeling. Largely what it came down to was a more personal relationship with God, and a more honest one. Meaning that I came to realize that it's okay to have a real relationship with him, and express frustration, even anger, with him when necessary, as well as more pleasant feelings when appropriate. God is a Big Boy--he can handle the tough stuff, and the fact that He does is yet another reason to believe that he loves us. Anyway, I didn't mean to wander off on a tangent. My condolences to you, and I hope you'll know that you're not alone. HEP

I'm not a vegetarian myself (I loooove a good burger, and (oh, mouth watering just thinking about it) BACON! But I do respect vegetarians and vegans, if only for their dedication, and it does seem to be a healthy lifestyle, if done in such a manner that you get enough protein. The scriptures don't say you can't be a vegetarian, nor do they say you have to be. They give us the freedom to choose, along with general guidelines, like don't shed blood unnecessarily, and don't waste meat, the principle being that life is sacred, so don't take it lightly. My ward seems to have an unusually high concentration of vegetarians and vegans. My good friend's daughter is a total vegan--no animal products at all, including milk. Other members of the same family are "flexitarian," meaning they normally eat vegetarian-style, but will occasionally eat meat when it's offered to them (to be polite).

Thank you, Vort. Maybe I could have stated my position more clearly, too.Although sometimes discussions like this can serve to clarify one's thinking. With all the back-and-forth, and seeing how others react to what I said, it can help me think things through a little more, and make me restate things in order to communicate better. I'm the type of person who "thinks on paper" (or in this case, a computer monitor), and it's rare that things come out exactly right the first time. Peace.

Vort, I think you're making a bigger deal of this than necessary. I am not against innocence. I am not against prettiness. I am not against "hotness," either, unless one defines "hot" as meaning the same thing as "slutty," which I do not. It is possible the author of the article did not mean "childlike" when he said "innocent," but in our society it often is used that way. I am merely arguing in favor of being mindful of one's language. There are times when it's okay to refer to a woman as a girl, as in "girls' night out." There are times when it is not appropriate to call a woman a girl, and you will offend someone if you do. Same with the word "boy." I think you overreacted to what I said, and you answered me rudely.

I don't see a problem. My father is a scientist, and also a good faithful Mormon. He never felt the need to offer extravagant explanations for the existence of dinosaurs, and we never really saw a conflict with the gospel. But then, we are not strict literalists. My family figures God created the world, but we don't necessarily know how he did or, or how long it took.

Whether or not the stake is "big," that they've organized a stake in Hyderabad is big news for the LDS who live there. :)

I don't know what the statute of limitations for petting might be. If your bishop's a jerk, he might make a big deal about it and postpone your wedding. Otherwise, I expect he'll just encourage you to be careful not to do it again (before you get married, anyway!) and maybe offer some advice. As to whether or not to confess, it's really up to you. If it's bothering you that much, go ahead and tell the bishop. If it's not bothering you, and you are not likely to engage in petting again before your marriage, then don't.

How reliable prayer is for me depends on what I'm trying to accomplish with it. If I'm asking questions, or seeking guidance, and expecting direct answers, it's not very effective. If I'm asking for specific blessings and expect to get exactly what I ask for, it's not very effective. But if I pray to express gratitude, to feel a spiritual connection with the universe, or to get something off my chest, it is quite effective.Yes, it often feels like one-way communication. But maybe two-way communication is not the point. Though if God decides step in from time to time and actually answer, I'm not going to try limiting his ability to do so! But I think generally speaking, God takes a hands-off approach because the point of this mortal probation is to let us act on our own without his constant supervision or intervention.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. So?

Prisonchaplain, I agree with you that what terrorists do is not based on a legitimate interpretation of God's will. The 9/11 terrorists were not representative of mainstream Islam any more than Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity.Still, the fact remains that those people did in fact interpret the Qu'ran a certain way, and acted on it, and Westboro Baptists interpret the Bible in such a manner as to justify their hate. My concern is that if we allow that wicked acts are justifiable in certain circumstances, like when God commands them, then we run the risk of people being more likely to justify such acts more often. Sure, genocide is horrible and evil when godless people like Hitler and Stalin do it. But when we do it, it's justifiable because God is on our side and/or told us to do it. Why don't we just say that certain acts are not right, period? Basically, I'm just reiterating my answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In my opinion, things are not right because God commands them--God commands them because they are right. Genocide is not right, and so God would not command it. If it makes you feel better, Prisonchaplain, I do think the Bible (and other scriptures) contain many messages from God, and should therefore be taken seriously. However, I do not think they are completely perfect and error-free.

Considering how many times you've let slide rude comments made towards me, I see no reason to care what you think.

Indeed, many (though not necessarily all, IMHO) of the "hot" women look like prostitutes, and therefore not innocent in the sense of guilt-free. And kudos to you for wanting to please your husband and not flirt with other men. But I wasn't saying you should do otherwise.

Now there's a respectful, grownup response for you! True, though people also often use it as a descriptor for children. If you look around at our culture, our tv commercials, ads in magazines, etc., the "innocent" look is often deliberately linked to childhood, even when the models are adult women. You can be a "boy" if you want--I am a man. Again, way to elevate the discourse, Vort!

I get what the article is saying, but question the wording. My "inner feminist" is asserting himself! Why the emphasis on innocence? What does "innocence" mean? Isn't innocence associated with childhood? Why would someone want to be perceived as a "good girl" when she's actually an adult woman? Don't women want to be taken seriously as adults, rather than infantilized by being thought of as children, or childlike? There's nothing wrong with an adult woman being attractive to members of the opposite sex. But let's call her that, "attractive," rather than reducing her to the status of an "innocent" child. The so-called "hot" women could be called something else, like "sultry," or even "slutty". (Hey, if you're going to criticize them, might as well go the whole nine yards!) FWIW, I do agree with the author in that I prefer "pretty" women to those who look like they just stepped out of a house of ill repute.