mordorbund

Church history trip!? Then I have to share Gramp's experience :).
 
From Palmyra to Missouri
 
 
I have no idea if these are off the 80 or not, but you can follow the links to see them on a map.

You should just go down this list and see what's on your route:
 
https://www.lds.org/locations/historical-sites?lang=eng

Honestly, I wish she had spoken up.  I believe (if you haven't guessed!) that the underlying point of the lesson is valid; but I think it should be balanced with a reminder that while, as a general principle, we are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers; ultimately we are each accountable for our own actions.

Help me reconcile these two points.
 
 
If a woman is not responsible in the way she dresses for men's thoughts and lusts, how can the men in the class be accountable with their words for the discomfort your daughter felt? Both are forms of communication, apparently expressing a message.

Help me reconcile these two points.
 
 
If a woman is not responsible in the way she dresses for men's thoughts and lusts, how can the men in the class be accountable with their words for the discomfort your daughter felt? Both are forms of communication, apparently expressing a message.

Help me reconcile these two points.
 
 
If a woman is not responsible in the way she dresses for men's thoughts and lusts, how can the men in the class be accountable with their words for the discomfort your daughter felt? Both are forms of communication, apparently expressing a message.

I dunno.  Paul taught that even though there's nothing wrong with eating meat that's been sacrificed to idols--if I eat such meat, in the presence of a Church member who believes that such an activity is sinful--
 

Why shouldn't TQ tell her bishop the same things she's been telling us? Do we have more wisdom than he does?

Oh yeah, I know what you're talking about <wink>
 

 
I guess some prophets do have the keys for resurrection after all.

OK, here's the best analogy I can think of:
 
Let's say that my family has a general rule that the kids can't eat in front of the television.  However, we have a process for figuring out which kids get an exception to the general rule based on age, how careful they are about eating, and how conscientious they have historically been about cleaning up after themselves generally.  We have also had a second rule that our kids' friends do not eat in front of the television--ever--regardless of their age, eating ability, history of cleaning up after themselves, and so on.
 
But then, one day, Chief Justice Mom says "you know what?  Henceforward, instead of having the blanket rule that visitors can't eat in front of the television, I'm going to make the same exception available to visitors that we do to our own kids--in other words, I might let a visitor eat in front of the television depending on his age, how careful of an eater he is, and whether he's usually good about cleaning up after himself."  Mom's ruling does not say that all visitors can eat in front of the television--it just says Mom will evaluate each of them on a case-by-basis according to already-established criteria.  Mom's subsequent decision to let a teenaged daughter's friend eat in front of the television, does not mean that a six-year-old son's friends can do likewise.
 
That's what happened with Hobby Lobby.  The Supreme Court took a set of already-existing criteria that applied to individuals (under RFRA), and extended them to a new class of "people" (closely held corporations).  The Court then ruled that under the RFRA analysis, Hobby Lobby (and only Hobby Lobby) qualified for an exception from the general rule. 
 
Other closely-held corporate attempts to--say--refuse to pay for all contraception, or blood transfusions, or STD treatments, or fertility treatments . . . ad infinitum, will be evaluated by courts on a case-by-case basis under the RFRA criteria.  Those criteria basically say (I'm going off memory here, but I think I'm essentially right) that a regulation must serve a compelling government interest (in other words, it's not just a law because we think it's a good idea; it's a law because it's absolutely necessary to prevent some truly terrible thing from happening) and must be the least invasive possible way of fulfilling that interest.
 
Incidentally, RFRA was not passed by wild-eyed Evangelical fundamentalist wackos.  It was passed by a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and signed by a Democratic president; in the wake of a Supreme Court case which held that the First Amendment did not give Native American peyote smokers who couldn't pass a drug test, the right to collect welfare benefits just because the smoking was a "religious" practice.  RFRA was, quite frankly, passed to annoy conservative Christians; not to protect them.

Didn't President Faust used to wear a CTR stud in his left ear (until President Hinckley told everyone to stop that nonsense)
 

I know better than to argue with you, I'd sooner see through a brick wall. So I'll agree to disagree, while stating my observation that there is more that goes into it all than you or I understand. There is certainly a trend towards the caloric energy balance equation working, but there are many researchers out there with interesting anomalies they claim disprove this idea. I also understand what you are saying about the technicalities of calories in and out not being simple, which I can agree with. I also won't discount the idea that all of the other research may eventually come back to calories in vs calories out, but with unaccounted for ins and outs.
 
There is a physical hunger response to activity to varying degrees that is a physical event, and it makes sense that the body would increase hunger in response to increased workloads to avoid withering away.
 
Writing those who struggle with weight off as undisciplined is a common thought process that is deserved for some, but not for others. It is easy to see some one as undisciplined because they continue to eat past their caloric needs, when they should just stop eating. Perhaps for you it is a matter of passing up some pie and ice cream when you know you've already had enough/too much to eat. For some it doesn't work this way because of messed up satiety signals, there are people who can stuff their face all day and still feel like it's fast Sunday because the filled up message is not getting delivered. This is however almost universally a consequence of choosing the wrong foods. Sadly for some this is still not a self-control issue as much as it is a lack of education issue compounded by the diet industry which continues to confuse people with all manner of fads to appease certain food preferences with empty promises and a food industry set on addicting us all to there wares.

It was definitely a mother's account of things. Recounting Joseph telling the family about the Nephites smacks of a proud mother watching her child perform at a school play. The way she describes her feelings for little Lucy make me think she was babied even as an adult (like many children are who are born last). And she has nothing pleasant to say about the doctor who came to Alvin's side (I don't remember if she actually uses the word "quack" but the sentiment is there).

I thought it was interesting the things she gave more detail on versus the things she kind of glossed over.  She definitely has some fierce family loyalty as a wife, mother and grandmother.  And that's one thing the entire family had.  They were very loyal to each other.  They went through so much together but were always there for each other through it all.

Back when I was doing wills, I would just very pointedly ask people--even elderly people--"what do you plan on doing when you're no longer able to live alone?"  Amazingly, people tended to open up pretty comfortably and generally had already put quite a bit of thought into the matter. 
 
It led me to conclude that in many cases, the trouble isn't the subject matter or the fact that people don't like to confront their own mortality.  The problem is that people don't want to bring the matter up with their children.  I've discussed things with all of Just_A_Girl's grandparents that I'm reasonably certain none of them have ever discussed with my parents-in-law.  It's easier for them because even though I'm still their inferior (married to their granddaughter), they didn't see me grow up, didn't change my diaper, and never had a relationship of absolute responsibility for and control over me that is about to be completely reversed.

A lot of aging parents believe they can manage on their own forever (even though clearly it isn't the case) so it is a very delicate topic and needs to be approached very carefully.
 
The key element is proper communication and constant conversations about the issue rather than "one" serious dialogue. You need to use some strategy as well. Most aging parents do not want to be a burden to their children which is understandable so when communication with your parents take place, make sure to express how *you* feel about them under the present circumstances, and that *you* are very concerned about their health, welfare, etc. In this way, you are approaching the topic as it is *your* issue, *your* feelings rather than theirs, it will help them to be more open minded knowing their child/children are having serious concerns about them.
 
Sometimes, no matter what... the aging parent will still insist they can do it on their own and well, you will have to back off for a while until they are ready. However, just because you are backing off doesn't mean you are not going to touch the subject ever again. You should continue talking about it often.
 
Most importantly with aging parents, is to keep their dignity intact. They are not babies, they are adults who just happen to be aging, it will happen to all of us so I would suggest if your parents are willing to move to a nursing home, ensure *they* are the ones that make that choice with your full support. Visit a few places, etc and then let them make that decision.

I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
 
1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
 
I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
 
So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
 
What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.

Applause, laugh, and thanks -
 
What have I been paying you for?! 

I think there are certain patriarchs who become foundational types for their descendants. In the process of becoming a type, individualistic elements of their stories are abstracted out to emphasize the essential themes their progeny should emulate. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all variations on the theme of the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham receives it in full, and the others get allusions to it via snippets. They experience similar trials. Sarah's trial with Pharaoh is repeated with Abimelech, and then repeated again with Rebekah and Abimelech (really? - fool me once...). Paul takes the abstraction one level further and sees that by emulating Isaac they are truly of the covenant, while those outside the Christian covenant are Ishmaels.
 
1 Nephi 10 is interesting in this light. 1 Nephi 8 has Lehi sharing the elements of the American tree of life drama. 1 Nephi 11+ has Nephi seeing an expanded version of the same drama. In the extended version, Nephi sees the fate of his posterity for generations, until they meet Christ, and continuing on to when the covenants are extended to them again. Lehi got this too. Reading chapter 10 has Lehi preaching the meaning of the elements, so he clearly sees it the same way. The generations that followed understood the this representation of their tribal leaders as both allegorical and literal. There was indeed a real Nephi and a real Laman. They really did sail over on a boat from the land of Isaiah to the land of their inheritance. As their descendants, the elements of the ancestral life apply to them as well. I think that's why we see Mosiah escaping the land of Nephi (like Lehi did), Zeniff trying to claim a land of inheritance (like Nephi) and Alma ... (etc). Their life was abstracted directly by the Lord in the tree of life vision, and fulfilled down through the generations with those eating of the fruit being Nephi and those rejecting it being Laman (a very literal fulfillment comes in the 4 Nephi apostasy when dissidents voluntarily take the name of Laman).
 
I think we're seeing the same thing with Adam. His life has set a theme, and many of the personal elements have been abstracted out (although modern revelation has given us more details of the individual - but that also gets abstracted out to teach general principles). He shows us individual fall and redemption. Paul uses his story to show us death and resurrection (via a second Adam). What's more, as with the other cases, his story is not just generic to John Everyman, but also to entire societies - Talmage (in The House of the Lord) sees in Adam's journey a reference to the universal apostasy.
 
So from where I sit, there's a literal Adam and Eve who were literally tempted by the devil or one of his servants (I think the serpent is not literal, but there's a message there too), transgressed a law (it may have involved a tree, I'm not completely sold one way or the other so both models sit in my brain for now), and had to give an accounting of their actions. From that fallout, they learned of the redemptive power of the Son of God and repented (I think the altars and angels are literal).
 
What's more, I can see us already starting the process with our own dispensational head. How often do we compare our own conversion stories to Joseph Smith's? He has set the pattern for us for search, ponder, and pray; seek and ye shall find; ask and ye shall receive; knock and it shall be opened unto you; receiving line upon line until you come to a perfect knowledge.

For some reason I envisioned a live band playing the disco guitar (because, of course) that gets quiet for an exuberant sermonist to read 3 Nephi 19:26.
 
And then the disco guitar cranks up again. 
 
 
Now that I type it out, I realize it's just Bill Cosby with The Book of Mormon.
 

First I must admit I did not read the entire article - but I plan to.  Second I will put forth some of my ideas about the Adam - Eve saga.
 
Ideas: 
I see nothing in any choice or decision made by Adam and Eve that were not part of the decisions and choices we all made in the pre-existence.   Thus I am not sure if I believe that the garden epoch in scripture is not symbolic of something far more reaching in the saga of all mankind.  I do not believe that anyone is “stuck” with a lot in life because something done by individuals (Adam and Eve) to which they would have no input.
 
Next I think that because of the power of political correctness and some misguided feministic overreaching that almost everybody is ignoring the “elephant in the room”.  I know what some mean in saying men and women are equal.  But the simple and obvious truth is that men and women are not equal.  This is because men and women are different.  Most assume that if we realize that two things are not equal then one must be greater than the other and I simply do not believe this logic applies.  What I believe is that we assume men and women are equal because one is not greater than the other.  That is what I see as a great mistake in the logic of feminism.  Trying to make and prove men and women are equal a foolish exercise in stupidity that in the end will accomplish very little of benefit and cause more problems than what our misguided prejudice can realize. 
 
I tend to think that men and women are both completely different by themselves and that only together can they be completed.  And that since the whole of their completeness is much greater than the sum of all their parts – it is foolish and stupid to think one is greater than the other.  One without the other is by them self unsustainable and thus an inevitable failure in the long run.  A man that does not honor and respect the role his wife and what she is capable of bringing to their partnership ruins himself and the best of his potential and likewise a woman that despises or does not appreciate and respect the role of her husband ruins herself and the best of her potential.  The one point I agree with the feminists is that in general men have been less appreciative and respectful.  What I disagree with is with any diminishing a man or the role of men by feminists that think they can do whatever a man does – just as well because the two are “equal”.
 
The final point for now is that the greatest accomplishment of the partnership of men and women is children.  As women assume their role of carrying a child they are vulnerable on many levels and are best served by a responsible father that cares for and provides for the mother and the child’s needs during this time.  In this role women are dependent on men and men are responsible for the pregnant woman.  I also do not believe humanity is best served by large shifts in rolls or in the preparation of individual to their most important roll.  As with many things in life – if one is going to be a wide receiver I do not believe they should put forth a lot of effort in to being a running back.  The team needs both in order to have that winning combination. 

Yeesh? can you believe the Suarez thing?
 
WHAT A BUNCH OF BOZOS.

FWIW, SS, if you listen to the temple sealing carefully, it doesn't set up a direct sealing between siblings either. Their formal "link" is merely that they are sealed to, and therefore happen to claim eternal blessings via the same individual.

Re-read your letter. Your call is to be a missionary. Your assignment is to serve in Adelaide. Assignments can change.
I would encourage you to start your service ASAP, even if it's not in the area you first thought you'd be going to. If they are offering you a temporary assignment, I would say "take it".