MrShorty

Members
  • Content Count

    1409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrShorty

  1. MrShorty

    Irreversible Damage

    If we decide this book is "required reading," I would also suggest that at least some of the critiques of the book also be included. As with so many divisive topics, I expect that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. Some trans people are legitimately trans, and to deny them respect and care is unkind and unwarranted. I also expect that there are some falling prey to "social contagion." In either case, I believe that kindness and support seem the best practice, because, for someone genuinely trans, supporting them is best, and for someone choosing this way to fit in, they will eventually mature and find their real identity (as long as there are no other mental illnesses that could drive this need attention). If it helps, here's a mostly negative review, but he at least says, "there are valid ideas here" while, at the same time, expressing a desire for some real data to drive the discussion rather than something based on partial data from a seemingly biased source. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier
  2. MrShorty

    Anniversary alone

    Glad to hear you will be released and able to rejoin your wife today. On another note, I looked a little into C. diff. infections. If memory serves, you know at least a little French. I found it interesting that C. diff is also sometimes referred to as C. difficile (si difficile??) and I chuckled a little.
  3. MrShorty

    Anniversary alone

    You're not describing my favorite way to spend a wedding anniversary, but you're right that, even in imperfect situations, it is nice and important to feel God's love and recognize His part in blessing us as He does. Best of luck with your recovery, and hopefully your wife has a safe journey back home. At that point, I recommend finding a better way to celebrate your anniversary (even if it has to be on an unanniversary day) ((<- not sure my Alice in Wonderland reference is working here))
  4. I know we butt heads sometimes on different conservative vs. progressive issues, but I'm going to lay my soul bare -- maybe to avoid the $200/hr therapist's bill that I'm tempted by. For Christmas, I gave myself a colorectal cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, I did not purchase the diagnosis at Costco or Walmart or similar that would be more than happy to take it back, so I'm stuck with it. I had no symptoms, so life seemed pretty good, then chemotherapy started. Can I just say that chemo is a strong contender for "the cure is worse than the disease"? Okay, I know that chemo is part of saving my life, where the cancer would eventually kill me, but, in the short term, it sure is rough. 4 of 8 chemo cycles are down already, just starting number 5. I am not looking forward to this weekend. After the chemo, then they want a round of radiation+chemo, before the surgeon goes in and cuts out the bottom end of my GI tract. Nothing to look forward to. Well, that's not true, I can look forward to 90% or better chance of a full cure by the end of it all, but that payoff at the end sure seems a long way out and it gets hard to keep it in mind when the short term effects of the treatments are so miserable. Anyway, not sure I expect anything from the group. Maybe just encouragement. Certainly prayers on my behalf. Maybe a place where I can anonymously complain about my lot in life and how hard it is (as if my life is really all that hard, I'm sure there are people worse off -- Ukrainians come to mind as well as other patients with a much less optimistic prognosis), but still I feel a bit beaten down by a normal part of a fallen, mortal world.
  5. MrShorty

    Cancer (and its treatments) sucks!!!!

    For Star Wars day, I get to start the radiation phase (5-6 weeks) of my treatment plan. I'm a little disappointed that I have not recovered more from chemo (recovered a lot during week 2, but seems to have plateaued on week 3), but I'm in pretty good shape. I'm tempted to find some glow-in-the-dark body paint or something so I can make myself "glow." (I still have a sense of humor).
  6. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    Agreed. I'm not entirely sure what is false and true in this discussion, but I agree that the discussion cannot move forward.
  7. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I get it, but I see too many examples of people who claim exactly that -- that God lead them away from the Church and/or led them to not embrace the Church when brought to their attention. Perhaps they are merely deluded, I can't say. If I take their experiences at face value, then I have to conclude that God sometimes does exactly what you say He would not do. In some ways, this is part of why I lean universalist. In this life, we all too often see through a glass darkly, leading to plenty of confusion and uncertainty. It seems to me that, for God to be perfectly just, He must allow for adequate time/space in the next life to clarify all the things we thought we knew but really didn't and give us each an adequate opportunity to accept the truth when it is clear to us.
  8. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I'm not convinced that dating is a homosexual act. I also don't think the false equivalence (or is it more of fallacious slippery slope argument) between permitting same sex couples to go see a movie together automatically and inevitably means that we also have to ignore the strong romantic exclusivity promise that is part of marriage (and many dating relationships approaching marriage). If you have read the Tribune article I mentioned, the big question in the article is whether or not dating and other romantic behaviors (that we don't bat an eye at when opposite sex couples engage in them) are okay for same sex couples. Many people feel that the Church has not been clear about that, so they feel drawn to make their own decisions. I just listened to an episode of Questions from the Closet (An episode titled Can I date from Jan 2021, if you want). For those unfamiliar with the podcast, Questions from the closet is hosted by Ben Schilaty (a gay man working in the BYU honor code office) and Charlie Bird (also gay and active LDS) talk about LGBT issues. In this particular episode they talk about their own experiences (including experiences with God/The Spirit approving of decisions to date or pursue romantic relationships). In they end, they don't officially want to give anyone permission to date, but they believe that it is an individual choice made as most of us make difficult decisions, by counseling with God and priesthood leaders. I also recently listened to an episode of Richard Ostler's Listen Learn Love podcast (episode 511) where Ostler interviews a David Bingham who is gay, left the Church in his youth, returned later (at the time of the podcast he had been in full fellowship for a few years and was then 60 years old) who is also in an exclusive same sex romantic relationship while staying in full fellowship. He seems to feel that God and the Church are fine with his status. I know these are not the only examples, but I would suggest that they show that there are at least some priesthood leaders/Bishops and congregations where active Church members are not bothered by same sex romantic relationships. Are we certain that they are forbidden by God?
  9. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    You caught me careless in my choice of words. Yes, God does not force us to Heaven. I believe that He will continue to invite us for as long as He possibly can.
  10. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I know we sometimes get a little uncomfortable with some of our universalist beliefs, but I try to believe that God can lead someone out of the Church for now, then bring them back -- even it needs be in the next life. There may not be lasting happiness outside of the Church, but I believe God can bring everyone (or nearly everyone) into the Church if we are patient with His timing.
  11. MrShorty

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I can't find anything Adam's said to insinuate that he is completely rejecting the gospel. Harkey was part of an article by the (hated in these parts) SL Tribune in January, where he expressed to his bishop that he was going to start dating men, and his bishop seemed to thinK he was okay as long as no "homosexual behavior" occurred. I know from other corners of the internet there is a long debate over whether homoromantic behaviors are the same as homosexual behaviors, and it sometimes seems people's opinion on whether or not someone is in line with the Gospel depend on where they draw that line. Personally, I wish Adam and Stacey the best. I want to hope that they will find some way to stay in the Church, but I have seen enough LGBTQ+ people who feel led by God to leave the Church that, in the end, I hope they find happiness either way.
  12. MrShorty

    Cancer (and its treatments) sucks!!!!

    Most recent CT scan suggests that the chemo round has been successful at shrinking the main tumor some, which is the main goal of the chemo and radiation phases. The radiation phase should shrink it more, making it easier to cut it all out. In short, there is still lots of room for optimism. Just need to endure the intermediate steps.
  13. MrShorty

    Cancer (and its treatments) sucks!!!!

    I don't know much people here want an update, but here it is anyway. While it's not the end of the road, but today starts my last chemo cycle. Just have to get past this weekend, and we can move on to the radiation oncology phase. As rough as chemo is, I'm sure looking forward seeing chemo in the rearview mirror.
  14. MrShorty

    Why the King James Version?

    Serving a mission in Quebec (and, as far as I know, other French speaking missions) we missionaries "officially" used the Louis Segond translation. One page claims this is the most common French translation used by Protestants (whether the late 19th century version or the 1910 version or the 1970's version, I'm not sure). A rumor that I heard (and can't seem to verify) is that the choice was made because the Louis Segond was a popular translation based on the Textus Receptus (which also forms a substantial portion of the basis for the KJV). Getting dangerously deep into extrapolation, but my guess has been that the Church would prefer translations based on the Textus Receptus (possibly ignoring newer information than the Textus Receptus had available), because those translations would be more similar to the KJV used in English. Lots of guessing though, so looking for more input.
  15. Some. I don't remember Kindergarten. I can remember 1 through 6. Middle school and high school are hit and miss, where I had about 7 teachers each year (some duplicated over the years, like my math teacher).
  16. MrShorty

    Romans 16:7 - Itching Ears

    A quick pass through Biblehub to see how other translators have rendered this verse, and it seems to be a mixed bag. Some translators like the kind of interpretation given here -- that these two were well known by the apostles. Several translations used verbiage like "outstanding among the apostles" which seems to suggest that these two were included within the circle of the apostles and had risen to some prominence. As @Just_A_Guy notes, this verse has been a challenge to patriarchal priesthood for a long time among Christians, so I'm not sure it is a new thing. The real problem that I see is that, while we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, we do not believe the Bible is inerrant. We believe that human ideas get introduced to the text through copying and translating. We don't have the original autographs to work from, so we are limited in how certain we can be about the original text. On top of that, we (or maybe it is just me) don't believe that the authors are infallible in their ability to communicate the impressions they receive or the observations they make and then record. IMO, I think this is one of those verses we may just have to come to accept is not entirely clear. We will have to do our level best using our traditions and what Church leaders say and what God speaks to our own hearts on how to understand this verse (and the underlying priesthood/priestesshood issue). Because of the vagueness in the text, we may also need to do better at tolerating the differences of opinion that vagueness leads to among Church members. I often feel like the worst thing we can do in a situation like this is to insist on a single, orthodox interpretation while "squeezing" those with heterodox views out of the Church.
  17. MrShorty

    Why the King James Version?

    Agreed. Unfortunately, we don't have any originals. All we have (even in the original Greek and Hebrew) are copies (of copies of copies of copies). On top of that, while others may have the ability to read ancient Hebrew and Greek, I cannot, so I am at the mercy of the translators and the textual critics that are all deciding what is the closest text to the original and how best to render the ancient meanings of that text into English (or French, if I want to dust off my mission language, but that is pretty rusty). The KJV is a nice translation, for a 17th century work. With all of the work in textual criticism and the understanding of the ancient languages that has occurred in the 300-400 years since then, the KJV is not our most solid translation (even if we like the old English rendering). I think there is a lot to enrich and inform our study of scripture (not water down) if we look beyond the KJV.
  18. MrShorty

    Why the King James Version?

    I'm not sure that "translating Biblical text into 20th or 21st century English" is quite the same thing as "watering down the text for the least common denominator". As near as I can tell, most of Christianity takes Biblical translation and textual criticism quite seriously -- even when rendering the text in early 21st century English. While there are no doubt different philosophies at play, I would be careful generalizing that anything but the KJV is somehow watered down.
  19. MrShorty

    Why the King James Version?

    My answers (or non-answers as the case may be): Why the KJV? Mostly I think it is tradition (and, as Tevye explains, we don't always know why tradition exists). There could be a financial aspect -- the KJV is public domain so there are no royalties or similar to pay for the use of the text. We have a special "fondness" for the KJV language (we even show a preference to pray using long dead thee/thy/thou pronouns when addressing God, as if these pronouns make prayer more effective). I also think there is a "conservative" (doesn't like change) element to this. I have long observed that the Church has a tendency, once it adopts a belief or practice, to stick with that belief or practice and not seek change. I think some of what keeps the KJV in use is this conservative inertia (which might essentially be the same thing as tradition (cue Tevye again)). As for what I expect for a future edition of the Bible? Since I see our use of the KJV mostly driven by tradition and conservatism, I guess I don't expect a future edition to be much different. Someone may make changes and corrections to cross references and the Topical Guide and similar, but mostly I expect future editions to look like current editions. If I could throw a wish list at the question, I would really like to see the Church put out a good study Bible version that addresses some of the challenges in the text, points out areas where the KJV translators just did not have the texts that we now have, addresses authorship issues (Documentary hypothesis would be interesting, but I expect Isaiah probably figures in big here since Isaiah authorship questions impact the BoM), address textual questions (like the long ending of Mark), and so on. Considering what I usually see coming from our curriculum writers, I don't know if we (collectively) have the stomach to tackle tough issues about the Biblical texts, so I'm not hopeful that the Church would put out something like that.
  20. MrShorty

    Cancer (and its treatments) sucks!!!!

    Thanks for the positive cases @Carborendum. I'm optimistic that I, too, will come out of this cancer free. The road to getting there is hard some days. I definitely appreciate the hope that you spread.
  21. MrShorty

    Genesis

    1st thought: I find it difficult to talk about all of Genesis as one monolith. Even if we leave out "documentary hypothesis" issues, Genesis covers a lot of ground, from creation through the flood then the patriarchs and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I think some of the answers to questions about Genesis depend on which part of Genesis I am reading. When it comes to the cosmology/creation portion, I find myself leaning heavily towards accepting that the creation account is "myth" -- and here I'm using "myth" the way Ben Spackman uses it (I find a lot of my current views on this are influenced by Spackman): https://benspackman.com/2020/04/science-and-history-as-myth-and-fiction-exploring-some-common-labels/ Recognize that, understanding "myth" in this way, modern science is also "myth" -- the way we explain how the world works. Concordism (the efforts to make modern science "myth" concord with ancient, Biblical "myth") also figures heavily in my thinking -- specifically, I feel no need to make ancient and modern explanations for the way the world works agree with each other. The ancients can have their "flat disc earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell" and I can have my Big Bang inspired universe (full of billions of "island universes") without needing to make the two "agree". As for some of the specifics. I don't know how I would know if Eden existed. Considering the superlatives used to describe Eden, I don't see any place on Earth today that could measure up to those superlatives, so I am inclined to believe Eden is gone. Super continents have existed at times throughout Earth's geologic history, but the most recent one (Pangaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent) broke up before hominids appear in the fossil record, so I doubt that the break up of the Earth in Peleg's day could be referring to the breakup of a supercontinent (more likely to be a description of political division rather than geologic). I like Spackman's idea of a "cosmologic" flood rather than some kind of real global or even local flood. In conclusion: is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible without "empirical" evidence? Probably depends entirely on what it means to believe in the revelations, but I have no problem believing in the revelations because, rejecting concordism as I do, I need no empirical evidence that these revelations must somehow concord with my cosmology. Should science and religion agree? When all is said and done, I expect them to agree, but, until then, I have no need for them to agree.
  22. MrShorty

    LDS Friend Pressuring Me

    I see two different things to deal with -- your husband's smoking/lying (your relationship with your husband) and then the relationship with your friend(s). In the marriage help circles I frequent, this lying part of the vise (porn, alcohol, smoking are the common vises) is often cited as the real problem. The usual advice that I see is to avoid developing a parent/child relationship over the vise and approach it as equal partners. That's difficult when one won't even admit to the vise, but it allows you to focus on what you will do to approach the issue. How much "honesty" do you need (a confession every time he smokes so you can keep score? financial honesty so you know how much is spent?)? Are you making it "easy" for him to confess or hard? The basic idea here is that you can't force him not to smoke and you can't force him to be honest. But you can tell him how you feel when he smokes and how you feel that he doesn't want to confide in you. You can confirm to him that you don't think his smoking makes him a bad person (sometimes we have a problem with this in the Church where we -- often subconsciously -- turn the vise into a statement of character) and even reinforce the good that you see in him. Then hope that your honesty breeds some honesty from him. A good counselor can help with this process. If you want a starting place, I think my favorite "coach" who puts herself out there publicly for this sort of thing is Jennifer Finlaysen-Fife. As a sex therapist, she often frames her view of "intimate" marriages (and honesty, in her view is critical to building an intimate marriage) in terms of sexual differences or porn, but the principles usually translate well to WOW issues like this. If I've remembered correctly, you might find Marriage On a Tightrope podcast episode 83 where she did a Q&A episode for Allan and Kattie. Context -- MOAT is a podcast focused on mixed faith marriages (where one spouse has left the Church), and, naturally, WOW can become an issue in these situations. If memory serves, one of the questions in this Q&A was specifically about navigating alcohol use in this situation, and I think you will find her thoughts and suggestions helpful for your own wrestle with your husbands tobacco use. The other side is the friend issue. I am a strong believer in loyalty between spouses, so, IMO, if your husband has asked that you don't reveal anything, that should be your first goal -- be loyal to him. That becomes particularly problematic when you feel you need to talk to someone (for your own benefit, not to satisfy their curiosity) about your side of the issue, because it won't always separate cleanly from his side of the issue. My only thought is to err on the side of loyalty, which might mean making excuses or even, "you'll have to talk to him" responses. In the spirit of honesty and intimacy, there could be value in telling your husband what you want to say to friends and ask what he would want you to say. You're in a tough place. I wish you the best and pray that God will guide you through the nuances of your personal journey.
  23. MrShorty

    Cancer (and its treatments) sucks!!!!

    A quick thank you to all who are including me in their prayers. I can appreciate the awkwardness around praying for someone by internet handle, but, as already noted, God knows. For a quick update. Today starts cycle 6 of 8 (for this part of the overall treatment). There's a light at the end of this tunnel.
  24. MrShorty

    Is Third Hour defunct?

    I have long felt that the content on the main page is different from what is going on here in the forum. It feels to me like this forum still has a strong core of long time members that will keep the forum going for a while (though, if Sears and Roebuck is any indication, a long history is no promise of future viability). My impression is that the forum has slowed down some, perhaps mostly because I don't see as many "new trolls" who come in and start something controversial that gets the group's dander up. I mean, how long has it been since our last good creation/evolution debate? It seems like it's been a while. To be fair, though, it's not like yet another creation/evolution debate is going to bring up anything new. We've been having the same evolution/creation debates since the early 20th century, always with the same (non) conclusion -- we just don't know and the Church doesn't want to take sides. Most of the good controversies that drive traffic on a site like this are old news. We've had the discussions before (sometimes ad nauseum) almost always with the same (non) results. I feel like the Ecclesiast when he said there's nothing new under the sun. I guess it seems to me that, while third hour is not necessarily shying away from the controversies, it also isn't getting as much traffic interested in rehashing yet again the common controversies. I could be reading the room wrong, but I'm not sure that the main group is too bothered by being left out of the center of those controversies.
  25. MrShorty

    Science question

    I don't expect it would float into space, but it would float up until the overall density of the object was the same as the atmosphere at that level. Most solid containers that are strong enough to hold their shape against one atmosphere pressure are going to be more dense than air, I doubt you would be able to effectively get a vacuum to float, but it would be theoretically possible if you could build a container from a very lightweight material that was also strong enough to hold its shape against the pressure.