MrShorty

Members
  • Posts

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by MrShorty

  1. I would agree -- including Porter Rockwell in a book about "outlaws" was a little bit of a stretch. It seemed that his only real claim to the title of "outlaw" was from the allegations that he was involved in the attempted assassination of Gov. Boggs (he was apparently acquitted of the charges). Other than that, it seems that he was mostly on the lawman side of the law rather than an outlaw.

  2. Full title: Butch Cassidy and other Mormon Outlaws of the Old West

    Don't quite remember how I came across this book, but it was at the library, I was intrigued, so I picked it up.

    It is a short book with a little bit of history and short biographical sketches on a handful of outlaws who were also members of the LDS church. Butch Cassidy is obviously most well known. Along with his biography, the book includes biographies of Matt Warner, Elza Lay, Tom McCarty, David Lant, and Orrin Porter Rockwell.

    It seemed well written, with an attitude of trying to be fair to the available historical evidence. I obviously am in no position to critique the research or other evidences used to come up with these biographies. With appropriate skepticism for any inaccuracies that may be present, it was an enjoyable read, and intriguing to consider what led these men into lives of crime and how they managed to succeed in their chosen paths.

  3. As far as "what is sin" -- estradling hit on the main one -- no third parties. The only other "sin" that I can readily think of is in 1 Cor 7:4-5 -- Except where mutually agreed upon, I would also classify chronic refusal as a sin. Even here, there will be a few couples who decide together they are done. I would expect these are mostly related to age/health issues.

    Beyond those two things, it becomes less a question of "sin" and more a question of "what brings us closer together." This latter question is really up to the couple to figure out, and not something for the church or God to decide for us. It is also a question whose answer is probably fluid (what disgusts you now may be intriguing in 5 or 10 years). One of the most interesting discussions I've read on this side of the discussion was written by David Schnarch (a secular sex therapist) who wrote a series of articles about how "Sex always consists of leftovers."

    A review of Dr. Harley's (author of His Needs, Her Needs) Policy of Joint Agreement also speaks to the kind of issue that is at play here. In his terms, sex is about adding love units to your spouses love bank and not withdrawing love units. Together, a couple needs to figure out what things contribute to building love and what things take away from building love. Again, this is not really about "sin" vs. "not sin" but about each individual.

    Your question is a good one and, especially when you extend beyond mere sinfulness, is likely going to challenge you some day. Sister Brotherson (author of And They Were not Ashamed) said somewhere that most (almost all?) couples will face some form of sexual incompatibility in their marriage. As Dr. Gottman might say, it is not a question of whether a couple will face incompatibilities, but it will be how they handle those incompatibilities that will determine their success as a couple.

  4. I prefer my PB&J sandwiches open faced. So, use the OP's method 1, but forget to put the slices together (Of course this only works when you are eating the sandwich immediately, and you have to be skilled at eating PB&J sandwiches to eat them this way. Someone prone to dropping his sandwich will end up getting PB&J all over the floor.)

  5. The Lord told Alma, "as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me." (Mos 26:30) The scriptures list only one sin that is "unpardonable," and this one is not it (even multiple offenses). Through repentance, Christ's atonement is big enough to cover all of your sins, no matter how many, not matter how serious, no matter how many times.

  6. I recall a couple of years ago, the sisters over at feminist mormon housewives (FMH) made an issue of this. As I recall from their efforts to discuss the issue, the Church's official, churchwide policy would be that you can participate. Some may request tampon use, but women should not be prohibited from performing baptisms simply because it is that time of the month.

    Calling the temple matron should confirm this policy, but the ladies at FMH did find that it sometimes depended on the temple or even the individual who answered the phone at the temple. So that the policy was not consistently implemented across temples and across days/workshifts.

    In the end, the conclusion seemed to be that they should let menstruating women perform baptisms.

  7. For reasons I won't go into here, I find myself skeptical whenever we self-diagnose our porn/masturbation/sexual "addictions." If nothing else, I think we way over use the term addiction in these contexts.

    If you are truly addicted, my first piece of advice would be to drop the expectation that you will overcome on your own. You may even need to find someone well qualified in addiction recovery to help you (if needed, your bishop should be able to help you find and pay this person for their service).

  8. PC: Here's how I see the "Are Mormon's Christian?" debate. It started years ago when I found myself getting rather irritated by the talks/articles/discussion by GA's and other LDS trying to convince the world that we are Christian. In many ways, I began to think we sounded kind of like that guy who, year after year, submits an application to become a member of an exclusive country club. And, year after year, the membership board considers his application and rejects. And, every time his application is rejected, he tells anyone who will listen why the board was wrong and why he should be admitted into the club.

    The thing that I really liked about the article in the OP is that it is kind of like a glimpse into that membership board meeting. I found it gratifying to think that the decision to "reject" our Christian membership may not be unanimous - that there may be people and groups within this club that would be willing to welcome Mormons into the "Christian" club.

    Note that, in my mind, this question is very different from "Does God accept and/or approve of the LDS faith/belief system?" If He does, being labeled "Christian" doesn't really do anything more to make us acceptable to God.

    I expect that somewhere in the interplay between these two points of view is something like the question you're asking: " How wrong can one be and still be okay with God?"

  9. Of all of the commercials the church put out in that era, that is the one I remember the best (don't know why).

    "You tell one lie, it leads to another.

    So you tell two lies to cover each other..."

  10. I think the key statement from the article is this:

    "It is also because all their false teachings concern nonessential issues. Nonessentials are principles that may be important for spiritual growth but on which someone may be in error without losing their status as a forgiven, born-again, blood-bought, heaven-bound child of God."

    IMO, it seems that a lot of the debate around "are Mormons Christians" hinges on exactly what characteristics/beliefs are "essential" to be a Christian. Many, like this group, will accept anyone that "encourage people to make Jesus Christ their personal Lord and Savior." Others seem to take a narrower view of what constitutes "Christian." For example, it often seems that many want the concept of "sola scriptura" or the concept of "Sola Fide" to be defining characteristics of "Christian." It is nice in many ways to see some on "the other side of the fence" who want to use a broad enough definition of "Christian" to allow us "Mormons" to fit in.

  11. Is there any proof that smaller objects, say the size of a marble, have gravity?

    An early experiment by Henry Cavendish is considered one of the earliest successful efforts at measuring the density of the earth based on Newton's law of gravitation. Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and he could see the gravitational attraction between 300 pound balls and 2 pound balls. I would venture to say that, yes, with the correct equipment, we can show gravitational attraction between small objects.

    Mathematically, Newton's law of Gravitation is probably the easiest expression to fix ideas. F=G*m1*m2/r^2 Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Two things to note from this equation. 1) the inverse square law -- meaning that the force due to gravity drops off quickly as the distance increases. and 2) the magnitude of G (~7E-11 N m2/kg2). the take home message would be that, in theory, everything exerts a gravitation pull on everything else. In practice, the force of gravity is so weak that at least one of the masses must be quite substantial before its gravity becomes discernible in practical ways.

  12. A few thoughts of my own:

    1. I must admit that, since I learned about the differences between modalism and trinitarianism, I sometimes struggle to really grasp the difference between trinitarianism and the LDS Godhead. I note that this

    TC: There are 3 persons that are one G-d.

    sounds an awful lot like D&C 20:28

    Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God

    It sometimes seems to me that the differences between TC and LDS are more in points like number 2 trying to describe the nature of God than in whatever statement of "three in one" that is put forth.

    4. Is this one a fair comparison? After point 3, it seems like a moot point. It also seems that we as LDS, also believe that man must be taught in some fashion about God after birth, as we will not automatically come to a knowledge of the Gospel on our own. As far as I know, there are no examples of any person coming to a knowledge of the Gospel without angels, prophets, scriptures, teachers, etc. to teach him/her. We sometimes romanticize the process as "echoes from eternity" or "being reminded of something we once knew", but there is still an underlying necessity for man to be taught the Gospel.

    6. I sometimes find it interesting that we LDS tend to classify the telestial as a level of "heaven." In D&C 76, the telestial is described as "those who are thrust down to hell" (D&C 76:84). I sometimes wonder if we would get a more "favorable" comparison to TC if we described it as 2 levels of hell (one level for those who fail to gain a testimony of Christ D&C 76:82 and another level for those who deny the Holy Ghost) and two levels of heaven (terrestrial for those who receive a testimony of Jesus but are not valiant in that testimony D&C 76:79 -- celestial for those who receive that testimony and are valiant).

  13. I could be wrong, but I've always taken this as a reference to what we might call the process of canonization of scripture. I'm not familiar with all of the historical details for every "revelation", but the basic process seems to be something like what is described in the Gospel Doctrine manual for section 138 https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-teacher-manual/chapter-31-the-redemption-of-the-dead?lang=eng see the first bullet point of part B under "Ideas for Teaching". In short, I think the idea here is that a revelation cannot become scripture and completely binding on us as church members until we as a body have accepted into our canon.

  14. I think that, because of Christ's atonement, we become greater than the sum of our good choices.

    There are a couple of verses in Ezekiel 18.

    paraphrasing vs. 24: "when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned...in his sins he shall die."

    paraphrasing vs. 27: "when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness and doith that which is lawful, he shall save his soul alive."

    So, in many ways, I think God is more concerned with the direction we are headed at the end of our life, rather than a sum total of good (or good minus bad) choices.

  15. what if I view my "true self" as a porn star?

    Is being a porn star inherently evil? Is it allowable to be a "porn star" as long as you are married to your co-star and all of your "porn star sex" stays between you and your co-star?

    The main point I took from the article in the OP was that we need to learn how to embrace our sexuality as a part of who we are. Sometimes in our conservative religion we give the impression that the only good Mormon is an asexual Mormon, which, of course, is false. Catholics probably have a harder time of this because of the way that their history and theology has implied that a celibate life, whenever possible, is preferable to married life. I think their is an important lesson here about learning to accept our sexuality and learn how to integrate into our lives within the bounds set by the Lord in scripture.

  16. On wisdom teeth: My dentist before my mission also said that there was enough room for my wisdom teeth, wrote that on the application, and I served my mission with all 4 wisdom teeth. (they came out several years after my mission). Unless things have changed, if your dentist will put that on the form, then there may not be a problem.

  17. After another year and a half, I'm opening this back up (I never know if it is better to resurrect an old thread or start new). Anyway, I was reading through Elder Bednar's most recent conference talk We Believe in Being Chaste - general-conference and a couple of things really stood out to me.

    1)

    The power of procreation is spiritually significant. --- How we feel about and use that supernal power will determine in large measure our happiness in mortality and our destiny in eternity.

    This is perhaps the section of the talk that really hit me. I knew that somehow, sexuality was "spiritually significant" I'm just not sure I understand very well how it is spiritually significant.

    In the context of a talk like this, I expect Elder Bednar was thinking of the permissive and casual attitudes of the broader culture towards sex and promiscuity. The "if it feels good, do it" kind of thinking. Because of this, I might be reading more into it than he wants, but I feel like a statement like this can also mean those who develop overly "puritanical" views on sex -- sex is a necessary evil, to be engaged in solely for the purpose of having children, and, even then, try not to enjoy it." Or perhaps those, husbands and wives, who decide that sex is not for them- they are going to take their marriage to a "higher" plane where sex is shunned. Could those who refuse to develop and nurture their sexuality in marriage also be included in a statement like this?

    2)

    The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed. - Elder Bednar

    The power to create mortal life is the most exalted power God has given his children. -Elder Oaks

    they [sexual relations] are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature.... -Elder Bednar

    I often have a hard time believing superlatives like Elder Oaks used here, but do we really believe this? Do we teach this to ourselves and to our children? As short, simple, positive statements about sexuality, these statements really struck me. In part because I believe and want to believe that they are true (even if it is difficult to accept that it could be the most exalted power). And in part because I wonder if we are teaching this to ourselves and our young people as effectively as we should. Would our youth be more or less inclined to abstain from sexual behaviors if they really understood and believed that sexuality is an "exalted power" and "the ultimate expression of our divine nature?" When young women talk about "divine nature," is it appropriate to help them understand that their sexuality is a part of that divine nature? Do we understand and accept, as parents and leaders, how sexuality is part of our divine nature so that we can help them understand? We usually associate sexuality with the "carnal and sensual" natural man -- how can we make the leap to associating our sexuality with our divine nature?

    Again, I hope it's alright to resurrect this old thread to add some new thoughts to it. If nothing else, I found it useful for myself to try to put these thoughts into words.

  18. In the spirit of the golden rule, I turned it around and thought of what I think would make me feel like a king in my marriage. This very quickly turned into thoughts around love languages (whether you like Dr. Chapman's 5 or some other variation). When my wife "speaks" my love language(s), I feel like a king. When she neglects/ignores those things, I feel less regal.

    So, in the spirit of the golden rule, if I put forth the effort to learn her love language(s) and become proficient in doing/saying those things that really make her feel loved, then I can help her feel like a queen.

  19. So, what if you are in a marriage where your spouse refuses you? Is it still a sin?

    I'm not real conversant with rhetorical concepts, but I would call the question of sexual refusal either a red herring or a strawman - it has no real bearing on the question of whether masturbation is sinful or not. If masturbation is a sin, it is a sin for singles/never marrieds, married with a good sexual relationship, married with a dysfunctional sexual relationship, widowed/widower, or divorced. If it is not a sin, it's not a sin, and that should not depend on relationship status.

    if your spouse refuses and shows no affection, you just have to live your life with nothing because someone made a choice for you? After years of nothing, years, then it becomes a frustration that words cannot describe and knowing it will never end. At least in prison you can look forward to getting out of jail at some point.

    I completely agree. It is difficult to explain, especially to someone who has not lived it, just how painful and difficult a sexless marriage can be. The pain is real, and the difficulties are real. If/because we believe that masturbation is sin and divorce on grounds of sexual refusal is a sin, then that could very well mean that one has to live the rest of one's life without.

    There is something about our fallen, mortal experience that means other people's bad choices cause us problems. The real test is how we will deal with them. Part of that test is judging something as sin or not sin, judging between good, better, and best courses of action, learning how to be selfless, learning how to keep covenants even when it is difficult, and so on.

    I've never been able to get behind the idea that sex is a "need." That does not ring true to me.

    I've ran this around in my head, as well. In a lot of ways, it depends on how we judge what is a need. Most of the time, we take needs to be those things necessary to sustain life - limited pretty much to food,water, and air.

    On another line of thinking, if we look at life and death of marriage, maybe this is one way that sex can be a need. If Pres. Kimball is correct that a majority of divorces are caused by some kind of sexual dysfunction (or at least, sex is a contributing factor in a majority of divorces), then it would seem clear that there are many marriages that die on the rock of sexual dysfunction (the most common sexual dysfunction is mismatched libidos/lack of desire). Surveys show that sexual satisfaction is consistently correlated with relationship satisfaction (which one causes which or are they both caused by something else is undetermined). I think there is cause to suggest that sex is one need in marriage. Without it, many marriages will suffer and die. Sex is only one component, and let's be clear that sexual refusal is not the only sexual dysfunction.

    Another aspect is that, married or single, we each need to come to terms with our sexuality. Sometimes it seems to me that our discussions about sex in the church give the impression that we should all aspire to be asexual. I've come to believe that this isn't what we want to teach, but it sometimes gets received that way. Somewhere along the way, we need to learn to accept and embrace our sexuality, and accept and embrace that God has given certain commandments to govern our sexuality. These two often seem at odds with each other, but there is a need for each of us to figure out how these two blend together in our own lives.

  20. My car broke down and it looks like I will need to get a new one. Maybe it can be repaired (transmission is gone) but chances are it's gone for good.

    If all it needs is a new transmission, I would attempt to weigh the costs associated with rebuilding the transmission against the costs associated with a new/used car. Just about everytime I do this, I decide that it is cheaper to rebuild/replace the transmission than to buy a new car. Oftentimes, I decide it is cheaper than buying a used car. It is rarely a clear "black and white" decision, but I would not be too quick to decide not to fix your existing car.
  21. This isn't really a request for advice (so maybe belongs in a different forum), but I came across this article from Lark News. Before the link, I want to point out that this is a Christian parody/satire site, so this couple is fictional. Satire's purpose is often to trigger some discussion/thought/etc., so I wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

    Christian couple maintains abstinence through first two years of marriage - LarkNews.com - A Good Source for Christian News

    The discussion on facebook that I saw about this article was interesting in one particular respect. The person who shared the article did not initially point out that it was satire/parody. It was interesting to me how many commentors assumed that it was true. In other words, the article was not too outlandish as to be totally unbelievable. I have to admit that I initially believed it, too. So, in other words, I found it interesting how readily our opinion of Christian teachings around sex would lead us to believe that a couple could really get married and still believe that “If it was holy before, it must be double-holy afterwards.”

  22. This is another of those "I read it when I was in grade school, so I decided to read it again" books. Technically I didn't read it, we listened to it as a family on a recent road trip.

    Brief plot summary: Meg and Charles Wallace meet Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which who take them on an interstellar adventure to find and rescue the chidren's father. They meet several interesting characters, eventually coming face to face with an evil force that controls the planet on which their father has been imprisoned.

    This is an interesting story with some interesting themes in it. The children face questions around the battle between good and evil, the value of individuality, and the value of making your own decisions.

    At one point, as IT talks about how, on Camazotz, no one has to suffer for their own bad decisions, because IT makes all the decisions. I asked my kids what that sounded like. My middle daughter responded that it kind of sounded like Satan's plan for us.

    The book is targeting a younger audience, but, as with a lot of good children's books, I still found this book very enjoyable and thought provoking.

  23. According to him when guys lived together it was common that they became closer and even after breaking up living together still considered former room mates trusted friends - but if a guy and a girl ever hooked up and co-habituated (roomed together) any friendship after a separation was very rare and bitter hatred was the norm.

    How much of this is due to the gender of the people involved, and how much of it is due to some other fundamental difference in these kind of relationships. In particular I'm thinking right now of questions around exclusivity and commitment.

    Roommate relationships carry very little commitment. Sure a roommate is expected to pay his/her fair share of the bills and do his/her fair share of the housework. There may be a term on the lease/rental contract (month, semester, school year, annual, etc.). Beyond that, a roommate relationship carries no commitment. In fact, it is expected that the relationship will likely end at the end of the lease term. Roommate relationships also do not carry any sense of exclusivity. If your roommate says something nice about another person, there is no jealousy or similar, because there is nothing in your relationship about being exclusive. If a husband uses pornography, his wife feels betrayed -- maybe inadequate, because her expectation for the relationship involved certain commitments to sexual exclusivity that are violated by pornography use. If a roommate uses pornography, you may think less of him as a person, you may worry about certain legal issues, but his porn use does not reflect on you personally nor do you feel threatened by it.

    Maybe it is saying the same thing over again, but I would suggest considering the type of relationship (roommate vs romantic relationship) rather than the gender of the people involved. Perhaps rather than comparing male-male roommate relationships to male-female romantic relationship, a better comparison would be male-male roommate with female-female roommate and (if he knows any) male-female roommate relationships.

  24. He gave his opinion that it is most difficult and near impossible for men and women to be on the same page sexually and that is one of the great paradoxes and challenges of traditional marriage.

    In some ways, I would say that he is on to something here. One thing I took from David Schnarch is that abnormal couples are naturally sexually compatible. The rest of us "normal" couples have to figure out how to deal with our sexual dysfunctions. I believe it was Laura Brotherson (in her book or on her blog, I can't recall) who said that just about every couple will have, to some degree or another, differences in how they approach sexuality and will, together, have to figure out how their joint sexuality is going to play out in their marriages.

    In many ways this extends beyond sexuality. Couples have to figure out how they are going to deal with family traditions (whose house are going to for Christmas each year?), eating habits, religious and political differences, and I'm sure the list could go on and on and on. In many ways, it is important to recognize that it is a very rare couple who will naturally become "one flesh" (in all the nuances of that phrase) without a significant amount of work.

    The main danger I see in the attitude behind this kind of comment is that it may prevent a couple from seeing things they share. For myself, I have come out of many a meeting or discussion that emphasized the "Mars vs. Venus" elements of relationships where I was completely frustrated and near giving up, because this "polarization" of the sexes sometimes makes me feel like these differences are so inherent in our gender stereotypes that maybe they cannot be overcome. I have read many experiences from women in sexless marriages (where she is the one who wishes for more) whose feelings and experiences and frustrations almost exactly echo my own. I sometimes feel like we overstate the importance gender (and gender stereotypes) plays in how we approach relationship, when we would be better served to emphasize that some of these things (both the good and the bad) are part of being mortal, fallen humans rather than men vs women.

  25. I also don't like the fact that he discussed "philia" and "ero" as if there's absolutely no room in the middle for both.

    I didn't particularly like this part of his discussion either. It is true that, even in heterosexual marriage, we would say that a marriage based solely on eros with no philia is going to be rocky and unhealthy. On the other hand, a marriage based solely on philia with no eros (like many sexless marriages) is also going to be considered rocky, challenging, and maybe even unhealthy. I am glad that this gentleman and his ex-wife figured out how to live happily together as roommates while they raise their children. I don't think that this model will extend to other committed, romantic relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

    While I fully support the church's official position, as described in the attached article, I can empathize with my homosexual brothers and sisters. The church's position does permit and hopefully encourage full fellowship and participation in the church, but it effectively denies them any hope of a shared, healthy sexual relationship. In many ways, I appreciate how difficult and frustrating that denial is.