JudoMinja
-
Posts
1763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JudoMinja
-
-
The original (and IMO quite entertaining) thread about my avatar change a few years back is here.
I enjoyed reading over that thread. :) Apparently, I joined the forum just a couple months too late to have known you for your gansta avatar. I always thought the Iclandic girl was your original. Do you have any significant results for your experiment? You've now done at least three avatars- the gangsta, Iclandic girl, and mushroom clown... Which one do you think garnered the best reactions?
-
Is this thread locked?
You wouldn't have been able to post this question if it was.
-
LDS Fiction: I don't read much of that. I think the reason LDS Fiction seems like an extended New Era article is because that's exactly what it is. I also really get annoyed when people use ideas in fiction as gospel doctrine.
I read most of Jack Weylands books because my mom had them all, and I enjoyed them. Read the first two Tennis Shoes among the Nephites books, but couldn't spark enough interest to read the rest. My sister- however- devoured them, as well as Passage to Zarahemla, and we found out that the author happens to be best friends with one of our Uncles, so my sister asked our uncle to see if he could get her a signed copy. He got her something better- several pages of the original document for Passage to Zarahemla. She was estatic.
Other than that... I also have not really read much LDS fiction. I did read OSC's Rachel and Sarah and liked them, but I haven't read any of his other stuff. Yes, even his more popular sci-fi books have not been read by me yet, even though I love sci-fi and fantasy. Maybe I'll read them someday.
For me, the reason I don't read much LDS fiction is simply because I am extremely picky about what I like. I have very specific interests in the books I seek out, and I will usually only read a book to the end if the author is really able to engage me. If I liked it, I seek out everything else by that particular author. It doesn't really matter what genre it is- I read all across the board- but the majority of what I end up reading (for fiction at least- I also read quite a bit of non-fiction) falls into the category of sci-fi/fantasy, which (it seems) there aren't very many LDS authors who write in that genre.
-
Someone once told me that because the power of procreation is so sacred and meant to be employed only between a man and a woman lawfully wed, and because this sacred covenant of marriage is a requirement for entry into the highest degree of glory...
That those who do not make it to this degree of glory will lose any and all sexual desire or drive that they had while in this life. That they will not even look upon anyone with any feeling of desire to procreate.
This statement was most certainly that person's speculation, since again- this is something for which we do not yet have the answers. Yet, I think this seems to be rather fitting.
-
Ya i was too lol certainly a fun fantasy series, i also like their Deathgate cycle series as well.
And i love Fizban as much or more than Tas XD
I love Fizban.
And Raistlin. And Caramon. And... pretty much all the characters. I think the only one I didn't really like was Tanis. His character was just too typical and predictable- angsty half-elven dude. But, maybe that's because I was biased by my love for the equally cliched character Drizzt Do'Urden from R.A. Salvatores book's- the goodly morally troubled dark-elf.Tasslehoff, however, will remain my favorite from the Dragonlance books, mainly because he seems to be the only one who experienced any sort of fluidity and development. It wasn't just because he was funny and outrageously entertaining, but because he actually seemed to "grow" and change throughout the books while the other characters just remained the same.
-
I read yours and Klein's exchanges and thought about responding, but hadn't yet gotten to it. Let me define what I think is meant by a "right".
My definition of a right is expounded in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
A right is an inborn social freedom to which all people have claim merely by virtue of being human. In religious terminology, we say it is "God-given" (or in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by their Creator"), emphasizing that its existence is not conferred by governments or by documents. Rather, inherent in the very condition of being human and living among other humans is the existence of these rights.
For example: All humans have the inborn, inherent freedom to think as they wish. That is their right, conferred by nature or God or whatever überpower you want to acknowledge. Not all governments recognize this right, of course, and there are many (perhaps even our own) that would abrogate this right if they could -- indeed, that actively seek to abrogate it. That does not change the fact that freedom of thought is a natural right, and that any decent government worth supporting will defend it.
The three rights listed in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are not the only rights; as the Declaration of Independence says, these three are "among" our God-given rights.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are an attempt to further enumerate these God-given rights. Thus, we have the freedom to assemble, to worship how and whom we please, to keep and bear arms for our defense, to keep silent instead of being forced to provide self-incriminating information, and so forth.
In all these cases, please note: The right does not exist because it is listed in the Constitution. It is self-existent. The Constitution merely enumerates that right so as better to acknowledge and defend it.
Many today say things such as, "We have a right to health care!" Viewed from the pure perspective of rights as given above, such statements are quickly recognized as absurd, a perversion of the very meaning of the idea of "rights". We have no "right" to have everyone else take care of us. As Christians, we are taught that we should care for others, that we are our brother's keeper -- but that is a far cry from claiming that there exists a right for such treatment.
Hope this illuminates my position a bit.
I was just reading over this discussion- specifically the part about rights between Dravin and Klein and wanted to chime in with my thoughts, but as I reached the end of the thread I found that Vort beat me to it. My views about "rights" are pretty much synonymous with what he's written in this post.
I always get a bit aggrivated when people claim they have a "right" to something that has absolutely nothing to do with rights whatsoever. Changes to the constitution and/or additions to the ammendments are meant to adjust the governments ability to protect our "unalienable Rights"- or those things which we should be allowed and able to freely do, say, think by the very virtue of being human.
There are many things now which we expect our government to regulate and oversee which have nothing to do with these rights, but we expect government involvement because it is something we want that we feel will enrich our lives and/or make it easier. Health care and education are great examples of this. I do not think either of these qualify as an "unalienable Right" or something that our existence as human beings priviledges us to. Certainly I think everyone deserves to have affordable health care to help in prolonging their life. Certainly I think everyone deserves to receive a quality education. But what people deserve, what will make their lives better, is not necessary the same as what they have a right to.
Added amendments to the constitution have the purpose of extending the protection of our rights to those who did not previously have such protection. These are rights that are there, whether protected or not, but without that constitutional protection we may find them repressed. So when people are advocating for their "rights", we must think to ourselves whether this is something that their very human nature should priviledge them to and should thus be protected by the government, or if it is just something they want. It's a lot like teaching our children the difference between needs and wants. We need food, but we want toys.
And, of course, when you get down into these heated arguments about topics like same-sex marriage, we realize that the answer to this question is very rooted in our morals. It is impossible to make a decision about whether or not something is a right without examining our morals, because it is our morals that define what we consider to be rights.
-
Well I like most of Orson Scott Carde's stuff, and a lot of Weis and Hickmans stuff.
Wait, what?! ..... I rarely read author biographies, but I just dug up these guys out of shock. I had no idea Hickman was LDS! I've read all of the Dragonlance books and loved them. Tasslehoff actually inspired one of my characters.
-
I thought you had to be 16 to get one. When I was 16 it was the youngest we could get one.
I got mine when I was twelve. I remember at the time that everyone was trying to tell me I was too young for it, but I really wanted it and after interviewing with my Bishop he determined I was ready for it. A part of me now though kind of wishes he would have told me to wait a few years. It would have encouraged me to study and understand it more before getting it. But, I think back too- and I was going through a hard time at age 12 and having that patriarchal blessing really helped me.
-
A patriarchal blessing's main purpose is to tell you your lineage. It is then up to you to study that lineage, the Abrahamic covenant, and how the blessings/promises/responsibilities/etc apply to you specifically.
The rest of the blessing is meant to be taken as a personal guide and revelation for you. Some people get some specific things mentioned that may be important, but most of us get something rather vague. I know that the preparation we put in before getting our blessing can affect it- like if you had studied and prayed for guidance on a specific topic/area before getting your blessing your patriarch may have been inspired to include something about that within the blessing.
Since it is meant to guide you through the rest of your life, some of it will apply to you now, while other parts won't make sense or seem all that applicable until later. For example- my blessing includes councel for me to "learn of the testimonies and experiences of the prophets of these last days and let them become a part of [my] life". When I first received my blessing I understood that this meant the Lord wanted me to become more familiar with the words of the prophets- conference talks, their life stories, etc. But, as a youth it was hard for me to dig up the interest to look into those things. I'd listen to conference, yes. And I'd read my scriptures everyday. But the only deeper digging I ever did was when I tried to read Gordon B. Hinkley's bibliography and couldn't get through it. Now though, I've been doing a lot more digging into church history and the teachings of our older prophets. So, while I may have had a hard time applying that part of my blessing to myself as a youth, I'm finding it very applicable now. There are other areas that seem to no longer apply and still others that I just don't quite get or am having a hard time with.
All in all though, my blessing isn't exactly detailed. It's a bit generic and could probably apply to the lives of a great many people, but there are certain lines that identify very specific blessings or responsibilities that are meant for me. When I read over my patriarchal blessing again and remember that it includes those things the Lord has promised me specifically, I feel very greatful and touched. And of course, many of the promised blessings are dependant upon your own actions, choices, and worthiness. There are no guarantees. So I also find myself feeling more invigorated and driven to live up to my end of my covenants.
I've found that my blessing is much like scripture in that it is very "meaty". Meaning that every single line is important. Every sentance carries the weight of a message God has directed for me. And every time I read it I pull out something new I never noticed before. You will come to appreciate your blessing more and more as the years go by, as you continue to study it and the scritpures, and as you strive to live a righteous life.
-
Thumb up is "1" in ASL. A lot of us count with our fingers starting with the index finger, but in ASL you start with the thumb.
Hmm... Interesting. The book I learned ASL from had 1 represented by the index finger, but now that I'm thinking about it it was a "newer" book and probably inaccurate with some signs, trying to match it with more common hand signals. Since the index finger also indicates the letter "D", if that had been the original sign for the number 1 also, it would have been confusing.
-
Ok, so I'm just geek enough that I was fairly certain I understood the joke but couldn't laugh because I became confused by the "thumbs up". It's not an asl symbol for any letter or number, and hexadecimal is a code using letters and numbers... So what is the thumbs up supposed to indicate?
Is it supposed to mean nothing, and just be funny because he appears to be signing something? I think I've shamed myself with this post, but I was too engrossed in finding out if the thumbs up could actually indicate something in hexadecimal to appreciate the joke.
-
Female. Never thought otherwise. That's why I initially thought you were female Vort.
-
Just wondering: What do you call a rational fear of Friday the 13th?
Experience?
-
Cinderella by Steven Curtis Chapman is a great one for a Daddy-Daughter dance.
Not sure about one for the Bride-Groom dance though... Don't they typically pick something that's personal between themselves? Like their "first song" they danced to together, or something they feel is descriptive of their personal romance?
-
Just thought I'd update this since it's been awhile now, and I'm sure some of you are curious how things went. :)
I went ahead and thanked him for his gentlemanly behavior in giving me space and time to heal and work things out, and let him know that I was open to the possibility of a date if he was still interested and offered some suggestions. He said he would like that and that he would get back to me with details and a day for something we could do, but has since not said anything about it. I've seen him at church and institute, and he seems much more relaxed around me now and willing to interact with my little guy between meetings when he sees him, but he hasn't made any attempt to take a conversation farther than chit-chat.
So, I'm fine with that. I don't feel awkward in passing anymore, and we can both be comfortable and friendly toward each other, and if he doesn't want to pursue anything that doesn't bother me in the least. I'm kind of wishing I hadn't discussed it with my mother though, because she now won't stop pestering me about him.
Oh, well. -
The only problem i see is that Christ is referred to as the first in quite a few referrences so i don't think that lucifer would have been older..
Was he in a postition of authority? quite likely if i recall right he was in line right after Christ.
There are many instances, however, where He is also referred to as the first AND the last. A few for example: Revelations 1:17, 2:8, 22:13, D&C 110:4, Isaiah 44:6, 48:12....
Now the context of these scriptures tend to be speaking about His role and purpose, but with how much symbolic things tend to relate to things literal I guess I don't understand why everyone seems to be dismissing this notion right off the bat. I personally think it has potential merit. There is no way we could ever find out the actual answer to this question without further revelation on the matter, but I don't see why this possibility seems so very unlikely.
I'm not committed enough to say I think that it is true, but I do think it is possible.
-
And if that doesn't work, hit them with a massive uchi mata?
Harai goshi is much more satisfying.
Well, my preferred throw is Osoto Gari, but I certainly wouldn't use that on a dentist. They'd end up clonking their head on the ground and suing me for malpractice.
-
Geez. I got a 100%, 90%, and 40%.
-
Hmm... My personal thoughts on dentists- I don't have any problems with the people in general, but I take issue with them when they want to do more with my mouth than is necessary. I take good care of my teeth and go every six months for my cleanings. My teeth are ultra-sensitive and I get a special mouth wash to help with that. Other than that, I'd prefer my mouth to be left alone.
I understand how many dentists may consider their work art, but for me- my mouth is used for very practical reasons, and as long as I can continue to use it without hinderance or discomfort, I'm fine with it. My teeth aren't straight, but I never did braces and don't plan to. They aren't sparkling white, but I don't use whiteners. And I haven't had my wisdom teeth removed. When a dentist tries to tell me I need to do any of these things when I don't really need to- it would just make my mouth look nicer- I'm inclined to find a different dentist. If it is actually medically necessary because it is causing me problems, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'd like them to leave my mouth alone.
-
I love those "thunderclap" moments, and this is one that never occurred to me before. Of course, we won't ever be able to say for certain what the exact situation was, since this would require discussion on many things that have not yet been revealed to us. However, I believe this is certainly a possibility and could also possibly have been hinted at with situations where someone other than the firstborn was given a birthright or children from a "favorite" wife were favored above those who were born before.
-
What I found most interesting in reading the article is that he doesn't want to be found insane. So he wants to use his self-defense plea and set up the trial so that he can share his extreme views and how he feels those views justified what he did enough to say it was self-defense. Any justice system that accepts his definition of self-defense would have to accept a whole slew of terroristic crimes as nothing more than self-defense.
This is going to turn into a huge stage for him to share his political extremist views as he tries to prove both his sanity and his self-defense plea. I think they will certainly find him sane and guilty, but he's getting exactly what he wanted out of this- attention.
-
Arguments do not foster faith are are not really constructive to either party. That you sought out debates shows that you were approaching this with the wrong attitude, and that this- more than anything else- is why your faith faltered. Think about the "war chapters" of the Book of Mormon. These physical wars are described for our benefit and can be compared to the spiritual war we are waging with the adversary. When the Nephites sought to defend themselves, their lands, their homes, their families, and their freedoms- they were blessed with the strength of the Lord who helped them. But when they attempted to take the battle to the Lamanites, to turn on the offensive, or in other words sought out battle- they no longer had the blessing and help of the Lord.
Should you come across something, as you seek to share your faith and build up the kingdom of God, where you feel an inspired and important opportunity to defend your faith, then do so. But to seek it out is to go on the offensive, and this fosters a spirit of contention which is not of the Lord. Think also of Alma and Amulek as they spoke with the lawyer Zeezrom. Zeezrom sought to lock them in a debate of words so that he could twist what they said and manipulate their answers in order to tear them down and tear down their missionary efforts. No matter what you say, if you find yourself in such a debate, you cannot win. You are engaging in a discussion with someone who is not interested in learning but in proving you wrong. You must rely on the inspiration of the spirit to avoid such debates and instead of getting caught in their midst either sharing your testimony or saying nothing at all- as the spirit directs.
Should you be earnest in your efforts to spread the gospel, you will come across many people like Zeezrom and many situations where you may be tempted to go on the offensive. If you are not prepared, have not become familiar with the Word and the whisperings of the spirit, you will be pulled in and led astray. If you want to overcome the doubts and uncertainties that these people and situations can cause to form in your mind, it is important to take a step back and immerse yourself in scriptures, the counsel of the prophets, and prayer. Take the seeds you've planted and nourished in your heart and examine the fruit they've borne. If it is good fruit, you know it is right. And if it is bad fruit, you need to cast it out and stop watering it.
-
I think that whatever limits you set, the most important thing is that they are limits he agrees to. It won't do you any good to "tell" him he must set certain limitations in order to gain your trust again. Discuss with him what limits you would like him to set, and let him explain what he thinks is necessary as well. Then come to an agreement together. While regaining trust is certainly important, even more important- I think- is that you focus on his repentance and overcoming this weakness for himself and his own spiritual health. He won't improve if limitations are forced upon him. He needs to recognize that the limitations are necessary for himself and agree to them because it is what he wants.
-
So I guess that means that 3D movies are out?
Actually, no. My brain recognizes that it is fake, and after I initially jump I'm fine. I've found all the 3D movies I have watched enjoyable and am actually now thinking that maybe this could be a potential way for me to overcome the fear.... Hmm... Now I must hunt down every 3D movie with pokey objects so that I can watch them and see if it has any desensitizing effect....
EDIT: I see now how my previous post was confusing. I don't freak out when pokey objects are aimed toward me when watching a film. When I said "actually", I meant "in real life". So real life objects directed toward poking me cause me to freak out.
My friend told me he's petting, help!
in Advice Board
Posted
Your friend, right now, is on a high. Good relationships start off with the development of this euphoric feeling that leaves you craving more and more. It's that "head-over-heels-in-love" feeling that drives people to do crazy things. Without something to balance it out, without a strong desire and reason to keep it under control, it is going to lead to moving very quickly into making some quick and probably bad decisions. If your friend does not take some time to step back and engage the rational part of his brain, he is going to end up acting without thinking.
This could lead to a whole slew of problems depending on where he and his girlfriend decide to draw the lines. They may break the law of chastity, or they may decide to go ahead and get married without really thinking it through to see if that is what they really want. You are right to be worried about him, but... what can you really do about it?
Your profile says you are 24 and you said your friend is 21. That means you are both adults now. As adults, you are now free to be making your own decisions without having to check in with your parents or follow their rules. It is up to each of you as individuals to decide what rules and limitations you are going to hold upon yourselves. It sounds like your friend is leaning toward not restricting himself, since he's slipping out of church activity and is now toeing the line with the law of chastity. So, if you attempt to place a restriction on him, he is going to reject it.
From what you wrote, it sounds like he was raised in the church? So, he knows what is expected of him, but is probably struggling with his testimony. He needs to figure all that out on his own so that he will be able to stand on his own two feet. He needs to be able to hold himself accountable instead of relying on others to do it for him. So arguing with him about the morality of his decisions, at this point, isn't really going to get you anywhere. He knows where the church stands, where his parents stand, where you stand... and he needs to figure out for himself if he stands in the same place or somewhere else.
A better approach, I think, would be to focus on his relationship with this girl. Ask him if he really loves her, and if so- what is he willing to do about it? Is he ready to provide for her? Is he ready to commit himself to her? Is he ready to start a family with her? How does she feel about him? Is she ready to make the same commitments? Then, let him know that you wish him the best, and that you hope he makes the responsible, adult choice with the future in mind- for himself, for this girl, and for any children they could potentially create together.