Dror

Yes, I am a liberal. What you have presented is your idea of what a liberal is, not what a liberal actually is. I refuse to let you define my political beliefs. As has been pointed out, your little list consists of a series of gross oversimplifications/distortions of what liberals actually believe. In addition, liberals do not all hold the exact same beliefs, any more than conservatives do (indeed, lack of unity is one of our more obvious problems in the U.S.). IMO, America was founded on liberal principles, and I resent it when people claim I don't believe in American values. How arrogant! If you want to look at someone who doesn't believe in traditional American values, look at your own president and VP. Dror

Thanks for all your comments! I, too, checked my fingers after what Fiannan wrote. It would seem I'm not a 'girly man'. (Whew--wiping my brow with relief!) I notice that all the words used to describe relatively feminine boys are rather derogatory. But 'tomboy' is not generally considered negative. Are we to assume that masculinity is more highly valued in our culture? Dror

Reasons I should get myself excommunicated, let me think... Oh wait, that's not what you meant! Never mind.

Thank you, susieSA. One of my friends likes to say that the Gospel is all about relationships, and of course the most important relationship is with our Father in Heaven. :) Dror

No opinions about tomboys, anybody? Dror

Ok, no shrunken heads (they creep me out, too)!One thing my wife liked that I don't is country music, so I still don't listen to it. Well, ok, every once in a blue moon I do, just to think of her and how she got me to tolerate her playing it!! Something I like that my wife wasn't terribly excited about is martial arts movies. Another is 'Star Trek,' which she thought was stupid. Oh well, to each his/her own! BTW, my idea of decorating consists primarily of lining the walls with books. In that, my wife and I were just alike! Dror

This morning I was watching the Today Show, and they had a little section on raising tomboys. Some parents are concerned that their daughters were more interested in "boy things" than normal, but many do not worry about it. They also speculated as to why some girls are tomboys, but so far it seems to be just that--speculation. In any case, it occurred to me that the Today Show story would have been a whole lot different had it been about boys who were more interested in "girl stuff" than normal. So, I'm curious, why do you suppose it is widely acceptable for girls to be tomboys in our culture, but not for boys to be feminine (I can't even think of an equivalent term to 'tomboy'!). It also brings to mind some neighbors we had several years ago. It was an LDS couple who had a little boy. They were trying their best to raise him as "gender-neutral" as possible, allowing him to have trucks, GI Joes, etc., but if he wanted dolls, tea sets, etc., that would be fine. Before long, they noticed that outside influences pushing him towards "things masculine" was practically unavoidable. Dror [Edited to include a postscript] P.S. I just thought of something else. Since my wife died I have kept some of her things. Some of them I keep, obviously, because they remind me of her. Maybe I risk being called "unmanly" by saying this, but some of the stuff I keep at least partly because they're nice things that are somewhat feminine. I admit it's kind of nice having some "feminine" things around the house (and the fact they belonged to my wife serves as a good excuse to keep them! ). Am I weird for liking certain "feminine" things even though I'm a man?

Thank you, susieSA, I like that!:) Dror

:)

It's always sad when a GA passes on, but for some unknown reason Pres. Faust's death made me especially sad. Never met him or anything, but when I heard about his death, I felt unusually affected. Dror

Will somebody tell my wife I'm an official "Dictator?" She won't accept my word for it, and simply refuses to submit to my will and carry out my every whim!! (BTW, I am a widower, but think of her as being very much present in my life. She'd appreciate the joke.) Dror

Maybe retinal scans & fingerprint readers! And to help prevent vandalism inside the temple, they could put in video cameras. The armed security guards could also patrol the building regularly, watching out for funny stuff. Yikes!Dror

Exactly. If those people suffer, it is not because God wants them to or because He's condemning them, it is because they choose to reject Him (and keep choosing to). If we were worthy of forgiveness, we wouldn't need a Savior. God forgives us because of His grace and lovingkindness, not because we merit it.These may seem like small points, but to me, they say something important about God's character. Dror

PC, I agree with you in principle that we shouldn't try remaking God either in our own image or to make Him more palatable to us. However, I think the historical trend has been to make God appear less merciful and loving than He actually is. The Hebrew Bible for the first time starts to reveal glimpses of a God who is loving, kind, and wants to help the weak and oppressed. He brought the Israelites out of bondage not because they were righteous (they clearly weren't), but because they were oppressed and because He loved them. He chose them as a means of showing to the world His mercy. Jesus completed the process of revealing God when He suffered and died for us. It boggles my mind to think about what He did. He was God. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. He could have saved Himself. He could have punished others. He chose to suffer torture and death rather than make us suffer and die for sins we actually did commit. Jesus said that He only did what the Father would do. That means that God the Father Himself would have suffered torture and death rather than make us suffer for our sins. What's more, Jesus forgave His murderers while they were in the act of committing deicide. Like I said, it boggles the mind.For thousands of years people had made gods in their own image, petty, jealous, and vengeful. For the first time in history (and the only one I can think of ever), a God was revealed in the New Testament who was just the opposite, a God no one could have dreamed up on his own. It seems to me that people resist that new idea of a kind, loving, merciful God, at least to some extent. It seems as though they want a god who will exercise vengeance upon people who wrong them. Many of us want there to be a hell, a place of punishment where those who have hurt us will suffer for what they did. Problem is, not one of us is innocent--we are all guilty of hurting others. We all deserve to suffer. Granted, there are different degrees of sin and wrong, but still we are all guilty. Given that Jesus forgave deicide (His own murder) at the time it was being committed (they hadn't even begun to repent), it seems downright absurd for any of us to go around supposing that God might not forgive atheists, anti-Mormons who make fun of our temple ceremonies, or even apostates. I do believe in hell, but that it is self-created, not something that God casts us into in order to wreak vengeance upon us. Dror

I would say that God does not want to have people punished forever. Hell, in my opinion, is a state of mind that people put themselves into, and if there is a state of mind from which it is impossible to redeem someone, forever, then that is not God's fault. I cannot say if there is an irredeemable state of mind, or define it if there is one, but maybe it has more to do with what the sinner chooses to do rather than what God chooses. Of course God wants to save everyone, but do we all want to be saved?What is repentance but a changing of one's mind? And who makes repentance possible? Dror

First of all, double-check with your dad. Find out how he knows about the fraud and if his reasons for thinking the guy is committing fraud are reasonable. If so, talk to your bishop. Let the bishop conduct his own investigation, and let it go at that.Second, we are expected to sustain our Church leaders in their callings, not in illegal or immoral activities. Your friend who wants a temple recommend may want to bring the issue of fraud up with the bishop either in advance, or during the recommend interview. If she has a good reason not to support a Church leader, he should listen. Finally, don't let the naysayers get to you--in my opinion, one of the reasons we have a sustaining vote in the Church is in order to root out bad leaders, to give the members an opportunity to speak out. You don't have to prove the guy is guilty, just have good reason to think so. If you have first-hand witnesses of the fraudulent behavior, or other decent evidence, present that to your bishop. Then let the bishop take it from there--it's not your job (or your burden) to do the Church disciplinary stuff. Like the others said, don't spread the rumors--the guy may be innocent (and even if he's guilty, it's not up to you to prosecute him--just bring it to the attention of the higher-ups)--but do ask serious questions of the source of your information, and if necessary, take it to the bishop. Dror

The chapel I go to has a steeple--now. It didn't used to, but after they announced the temple, which was to be built next to this chapel, somebody decided the chapel should have a steeple! Kind of cracked me up. It could be my imagination, but it seems to me that if anything, we, as a Church, have been watering down our doctrinal differences from mainstream Christianity. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. My guess is that it's an attempt to show people we're not the bizarre cult some would make us out to be. You could be right about the Church differentiating itself from other churches architecturally, but I think there are more practical considerations, too. Basic logistical things like having enough classrooms, etc., for all the different classes and programs we have going on during church (and in order to have more than one ward meeting at the same time), lowering building costs, and energy conservation (though I have no idea what the utility bills look like), right down to the difficulty they've had trying to decide how to finish the cultural hall floors. I remember with fondness the chapel I attended as a child. It may not have been particularly beautiful or spectacular, but it had character, doggone it! It had a certain charm, and I've never seen any other chapel like it. Too bad we had to sell it. *sigh* Dror

Agreed. This is what our family did when my oldest brother left the LDS Church and had both a Methodist wedding ceremony, and an Eastern Orthodox wedding ceremony. He knew we didn't agree with his choices or beliefs, but we did what we could to support him and we didn't do anything as stupid as say to him, "Hope you enjoy your 'until death do you part' marriage!" In short, our love for him is unconditional, whereas our approval isn't. He knows we love him, but he also knows we don't approve of his choices. That doesn't really cause any tension in our family at all. We all still get along and talk pretty much weekly (he lives across the country). Eastern Orthodox, eh? That's interesting! We have a couple of Greek Orthodox churches here, and a Coptic one, too, but I've never attended their services, much less a wedding. Cool! Must say, the one Greek Orthodox cathedral has some of the most beautiful (IMO) architecture in town. But I'd better not get started on my gripes about LDS architecture (esp. the contemporary stuff)! To be fair, though, it is pretty practical/functional (in a good way ). Dror

Can't say whether or not I'm smarter than "Gee Dub." What I can say is that it doesn't exactly take a genius to get into Ivy League schools (it takes money and good grades, which are not the same as intelligence) or to lead a powerful nation (history is full of entertaining examples of idiots leading powerful nations). I would say that the President is not stupid, he's devious. He knows what he wants and he knows how to get it. Unfortunately, though, what he wants does not appear to be in the national interest (IMHO, of course! ). And if ever there was a time when the Constitution was "hanging by a thread," it is right now--why aren't the Elders of Israel (as a group) doing anything to save it? Dror

I don't think kids have a right to expect their parents to pay for their marriage. Nor do I think it wise to buy into society's expectations that we have these huge, elaborate, terribly expensive weddings. My parents did not pay for my wedding (though my stepmother made a beautiful cake that was much tastier than your typical wedding cake! :)), and my wedding and reception were relatively simple and intimate (small). That's mostly a matter of taste, of course. My parents did not pay for my college education, either. I don't hold it against them at all--they did a good job of supporting us kids, they just weren't wealthy enough to pay for our education.Maybe there are kids who get huffy if their parents don't pay for their wedding, and they may be wrong to do so. And yes, you are right, if the kids decide to never talk to their parents again, they have issues. My only point is (and I think it's the point of Kirby's article), why should the parents spoil the child's wedding day by being so openly disapproving if they're not married in the temple? It only tends to harm relationships. Besides, paying for a non-temple wedding is not exactly supporting sin. They are getting married, after all, not "living in sin." Civil marriage is not sin, it's just temporary (as opposed to sealing for eternity). It's not just about paying for weddings, anyway. It's about how the parents react to their child's decision. Whether it's the right decision or not, it is the child's decision. The question is, how can we make the best out of a situation we don't like? Is showing your disapproval of your child's decision as strongly as you can really the best route to take? I mean, if I were in that situation, I would undoubtedly express my concerns to my child, but if they were definitely set in their decision, I would not argue the point ad nauseam, either. There comes a point where you just have to let it go and focus on the relationship as a whole instead of one particular issue. IMO, it is possible to focus so much on individual rules, principles, policies, or commandments so much that we forget what they are for. That is, we can easily "miss the mark." It seems ironic that marriages, which are undoubtedly intended to help strengthen relationships, can be such a point of contention and family discord. Yes, let's definitely encourage temple marriage, but let's not let our devotion to the principle ruin our relationships with the actual people involved. Dror

A wise man who happens to be a good friend of mine likes to say that the Gospel is all about relationships, our relationships with God and with other people. Given that, I agree with Robert Kirby that treating one's child poorly because they are not getting sealed in the temple is inappropriate. Is the wedding about the parents or about the children who are getting married? Is it more important for parents to make a scene in order to uphold their ideas of what's best, or is it more important to celebrate the love the two young people have for each other, support them in the new life together, provide good memories of the beginning of that marriage, and be happy that they're getting married at all (instead of just "cohabiting!")? Maybe some children have an exaggerated sense of entitlement, expecting their parents to pay for a huge, fancy, expensive wedding, but all don't--many I've been to are relatively simple affairs, but pleasant. I don't think it's too much for children to ask that their parents show support when they take the huge step of getting married, and welcome their spouse into the family (assuming, of course, that the spouse isn't a truly horrible person!), regardless of the spouse's religion or the location of the wedding. It seems to me the way to impress the importance of temple marriage on children is to lovingly teach it to them as they grow up, not by making snide comments about buying them a ticket to Las Vegas or whatever. We may be disappointed if our children marry outside the temple, but it is their decision to make, not ours. If the principle of temple marriage is so important to us that we're willing to damage our relationship with our children over it, well, that's our choice, and it shows just where our priorities are. Remember also that many of us are sealed to our parents and children, and that sealings will, in the end, be meaningless should the people we were sealed to not want to spend eternity with us. The relationship is more important than the ceremony. Dror

Arms given to Iraqis unaccounted for Hmmm.... I wonder where they might have gone?

Yes, indeed. It seems to me the whole Iraq debacle has been an exercise in exacerbating terrorism, from destabilizing Iraq itself, to turning the entire Arab world (no wait, almost the entire world!) against us, and now arms deals.

by whom exactly? I can think of 8 countries in one continent (Africa) with seamingly worse human rights records. From what I've seen in other stories (and the linked story also), most of what is being sold is patriot missiles, and ADA weapons, and other defensive weapons. By The Economist's Democracy Index. BTW, I double-checked the Democracy Index today and found it was not #8 among authoritarian regimes in 2007--it's only the 9th worst (hey, that's improvement, right?!?). The article I cited yesterday must have used another year's Democracy Index. So, you may have looked at the same index and found those eight countries worse than Saudi Arabia, but they are the only eight countries that are worse. Saudi Arabia received an overall score of 1.92 (compared to the U.S.'s score of 8.22, and Sweden's 9.88). Not pretty.Dror