mordorbund

The principle of "try again" is where most people fall short.
For our current discussion, it is that people tend to stay at the "saying a prayer" phase without ever getting to the "pour your heart out to the Lord" phase.
I recently had an interesting interchange with my son.  He is a pretty competent piano player.  I wouldn't quite call him "gifted" (as far as music goes). But he has simply put in the work and study and time to become pretty good at it.
I happened to be in the living room studying something when he came in to practice.  Normally, we have the headphones plugged in, so others in the house aren't required to keep hearing the same song over and over again during practice.  But that day he had the headphones unplugged.
I was actually intrigued at how many times he messed up, and how slowly he figured out the fingerings to get fluent with the piece.  I was shocked.  He's very competent.  He learns new pieces each week.  
But as I heard him make mistake after mistake, and stop to figure out each step, I thought it was painfully slow.  That is when I usually stop trying because I figure it's above my level and don't try further until I've practiced a slightly simpler piece to eventually get to the next level.
That is why he's better than I am.  I can actually figure things out faster than he can.  I can get fluent with some refrains faster than he can.  But I lack the patience with myself.  He has infinite patience with himself.  And all the "failures" are simply stepping stones to success.  That is why he can play pieces that I can't.  Not because he's better or more trained in the piano than I am, but because he's not bothered by failure like I am.

Indeed.  To quote G.K. Chesterton:  “If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.”  Better to do it, and do the best you can manage at the time, even if it's done poorly, than to not do it at all.
 

Come on.  We all know what a big hit IV was.  You didn't like that?

I agree that very rarely does a person participating in a debate changer their mind from the debate, but it does happen. Dave Rubin went full derp-face while interviewing  Larry Elder and subsequently changed his views on black victimhood narratives.
@NeuroTypicalhas more experience with online debates than I do, but I’m sure he’ll agree that the person you’re trying to convince is not the die-hard staring at you but the silent lurker sitting on the fence observing the proceedings. These individuals change their minds all the time because they’re coming to the debate wanting to be persuaded.

I see in the news where a person in South Korea was killed by an industrial robot.  Link https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-world/man-crushed-death-industrial-robot-confused-box-police
Since this was my life’s profession and consulting business, I have had discussions with plant managers and others about the “kill zones” of robots.  Sadly, I am aware of several robot kills – some so foolish and stupid it is hard to imagine what people were thinking.  One of the saddest was a worker that disappeared for a week before he was discovered crushed by an ASRS robot.  He had observed the robot and thought it had a flaw not using a particular location in an ASRS rack.  ASRS stands for automated storage and retrieval system.  He placed a matrass in the location and took naps – until a 3-ton load was placed there by the robot while he was sleeping on the job.
One of the great problems with A I and robots is when humans attempt to interface outside of robotic design or mix human intelligence with what is intended for A I. 
I believe there will be a great advantage to have A I controlled transportation vehicles but what is left out of the notion of cars that will drive themselves is the mixing of humans with A I on the same roads.  Because of what I call the kill zone of robots – I do not believe that human interference is a good idea – kind of like using human fingers to change gears in the gear box of a car.  Any human doing that kind of thing will likely lose their fingers.
As advanced as we may think our society is – there are a lot of stupid humans that must need be removed from the gene pool before we will be ready for what A I and automation is bringing.
 
The Traveler

Statements from general authorities are very consistent.  "Abortion is like unto murder."  There is apparently an ecclesiastical difference.  Yet "It cannot be overstated that it remains one of the most grievous sins of this generation (dispensation)."
Some use the "like unto murder" as some sort of "get out of jail free card."  That is ridiculous.  "Oh, I didn't commit murder.  I only committed a sin so close to murder that it is difficult to tell the difference."  This won't stand up well when brought before our Maker.  It should be a HUGE blinking red sign that we ought to do all we can to stay away from it as much as possible.
On the other hand, we make allowances for abortion that would not be had for murder of one outside the womb.  Rape victims are essentially given a green light (I'm being generous with that terminology, I know).  If it is murder, why that allowance?  Of the three parties involved, the baby is certainly the one who certainly has no guilt in the matter.
There is a difference that warrants some different treatment.  Yet, it is so close that it should never be taken so carelessly as so many do in this generation.  It is this sliver of a difference that causes so much grief among people who aren't given enough light to understand what they are choosing.

I agree that very rarely does a person participating in a debate changer their mind from the debate, but it does happen. Dave Rubin went full derp-face while interviewing  Larry Elder and subsequently changed his views on black victimhood narratives.
@NeuroTypicalhas more experience with online debates than I do, but I’m sure he’ll agree that the person you’re trying to convince is not the die-hard staring at you but the silent lurker sitting on the fence observing the proceedings. These individuals change their minds all the time because they’re coming to the debate wanting to be persuaded.

This could be a love connection......  😇😉❤️

Republicans didn't do that. The Supreme Court did, in a correct yet stunningly courageous decision, giving the victory to honor, common sense, and Constitutional review. The liar Democrats made hay, of course. Dogs vomit, cows piss, and Democrats politicize events to their advantage. (Republicans do as well, of course. But Republicans are not the main threat to Constitutional government.)

I'm torn on this one. It's true that many Democrats--and yes, many independents--are pro-abortion. However, many social conservatives engage in politics primarily to slow down or stop abortion. They generally think politics are dirty, but are willing to fight to save the lives of the unborn. Many other Republicans see this issue as a loser and just want it to go away. I enjoy the Wall Street Journal, but this newspaper is an example. It's not exactly prochoice, but it sees the issue as a loser for conservatives. 
I partially agree that it's a tough issue to sell. On the other hand, if I have to die on a hill saving baby's lives is worth fighting and even losing for. 

And that God is good, and that he loves you.

This reminds me of some of the examples President Kimball gave in The False Gods We Worship.
 

How do you see yourself balancing your physical conditioning with future obligations to your career (including educational development), your wife, your children, your community, and your ward?
I think it’s normal, in our late teens and early twenties, to be pretty focused on ourselves and our own development.  But the point of eternal progression isn’t just that we become (spiritually or physically) powerful; it’s that we use that power for the good of those around us.
Heaven knows, the society we live in will put up with us—even indulge and encourage us—even if we aren’t terribly useful to others and instead focus on the glory and aesthetics of our own body and soul.  But at a very fundamental level, that sort of focus is in a state of severe tension with the sort of existence that the Church—and, we believe, the Jesus who organized it—invites us to lead.
 
None of us can make you want something you sincerely don’t want—or to make you give up something you truly love and value above everything else you currently have or anticipate ever having.  But you’re at a point in life where whichever choices you make are, by their nature, going to close some doors to you—or at least, commit you to paths you may find very unfulfilling and/or difficult to extricate yourself from later.  Now may be a good time to put some deep thought into what, and who, you want to be in five years; in ten; in twenty and in fifty.  

This reminds me of some of the examples President Kimball gave in The False Gods We Worship.
 

With wings like that, I’d cover my face too!

I was raised in the Church, and was always taught that those who do not have the opportunity to receive the blessings of eternal marriage in this life, will do so in the next life.  And, yes, one must be sealed to a spouse to enter the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom; however, if one does not have that opportunity during their mortal probation, they will have that opportunity in the next life, so long as they are worthy.

zpeel, I can feel your frustration, and you have my sympathy. But you're mistaken. I don't think I can put this in any way that will make sense to you, but let me try.
Think of a stunningly beautiful young woman. This young woman is so incredibly beautiful because she won the genetic lottery and just happens to have a willowy body, a gorgeous face with perfectly proportioned features, a soft, buttery, flawless complexion, and cascading hair that perfectly accentuates her other attributes. But in addition to his, she follows a strict beauty regime of diet, exercise, skin care, and sparse but effective use of makeup.
One day, God says to this young woman (perhaps through a bishop or other ecclesiastical leader, or through her parents, or directly to her), "I want you to go forth and serve me in such-and-such capacity." The young woman responds, "I can't do that. I have to take care of my skin. I spend over an hour a day just on my hair! My workout routine won't take care of itself, and it takes me time to prepare my food so I can follow my diet regimen strictly."
What is this beautiful young woman saying? In effect, she is saying, "God, you may want me to do such-and-such a thing, but I'm not going to do it. I'm much too involved in keeping myself perfectly beautiful. I realize you want me to serve you and perform service and maybe miracles among your children, but my beauty regimen is far too important to me to make such a sacrifice."
Is this a moral issue? You bet it's a moral issue. God, who has given this young woman all the gifts she now enjoys, requires something of her, but she won't give it. Why not? Vanity. Foolishness. Ingratitude. This young woman would literally rather people suffer from lack of her ministration than give up her vanity, think of others more than herself, and dedicate herself to her Father's work. As a result, she will never gain the infinite blessings she might have gained. She will have traded those priceless, eternal blessings for a mess of pottage called "being pretty".
The irony here is that all of her beauty will quickly fade within a few years—if she's very, very lucky, within a few decades—and leave her with nothing of substance. She'll be just another old lady, someone who used to be stunningly beautiful when she was young, perhaps still "well-preserved" but no longer admired universally for her matchless beauty. Because her beauty was transitory, the beauty of youth, the kind of beauty that inevitably fades away.
You have been given blessings from your Father. You have also been given commandments and expectations regarding your duty to God. You are given the opportunity to live the law of sacrifice, wherein you put your own desires aside and do what God wants you to do. You have been (or will be) given the Priesthood of Jesus Christ, authorizing you to literally act in Christ's name. And you want to give up these tremendous eternal blessings—why? So you can lift weights and be shredded?
My advice to you is: Put aside those vain ambitions. If you really care that much about bodybuilding, take a year or two after you return from your mission to get back your coveted physique. In the meantime, go serve your God by doing whatever it is he requires of you, including giving up bodybuilding for a time. Don't lift; don't even think about it. Put your mind to your service.
Do your duty; that is best. Leave unto the Lord the rest.

I think the reason you don't want to go on a mission is totally dumb.  And extremely vain and selfish. Sounds like all you can think about is yourself.  Such a shallow shallow person.  I hope you don't go on a mission to represent the Church with that kind of attitude.

With wings like that, I’d cover my face too!

With wings like that, I’d cover my face too!

I may be the worst Philistine when it comes to art, but I think the stupidest winged angel is the Angel of the North

I mean - aeroplane wings? I ask you!

Heaven knows, but:
Ani-Anti—Lamanite village in land of Nephi Antiomno—Lamanite king Antion—Nephite money Antionah—a chief ruler in Ammonihah Antionum—Nephite commander Antionum, Land of—east of the land of Zarahemla Antiparah—Nephite city Antipas, Mount Antipus—Nephite commander ...So, ya know, the pair of syllables was somewhat popular...  I suspect it had some meaning other than what it does in English today.  (I could be wrong, and the "Anti" part could be a translation just as the pluralization is.)
PS: The index pluralizes it thusly: Anti-Nephi-Lehies.  You say potato and I say potatoe...

Isn't that the whole purpose of fountain pen day? We collectively gather round the bonfires and melt our fountain pens.

Totally sexist I know, but "You'll be a man/woman my son/daughter" doesn't have quite the same ring. (And it doesn't rhyme either!)
P.S. Even that is transphobic: how about "You'll be a man/woman/non-binary person my son/daughter/child"?

I think it's a fine line, particularly with youth.  The example you provide is extreme, I'm more concerned about the incremental corruption.   I feel this is more of a concern for the youth in my area than it is for the adults.