MrShorty
-
Posts
1496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by MrShorty
-
-
I saw this book recommended by a local therapist on a blog. I was just wondering if anyone here has read it and could comment on whether or not it was useful. I've been able to kind of preview the text in google books, and it looks like it might be useful.
-
"Bart, you do know what happens when you mix acids and bases, right?"
-
There are some interesting commentaries in there. I didn't read everything, but just looking at some of the "canonical" writings that are in our current Bible:
They claim that 2 Peter is the "newest" of eveything in the Bible, and clearly couldn't have been written by Peter. Their discussion of this book even seemed to have the tone of "should it even have been canonized?"
The authorship of many books seems to be in question.
It would appear that some of Paul's writings are the oldest we have.
Of the gospels, Mark is the oldest written. Matthew seems to borrow from Mark, suggesting that the four gospels aren't necessarily independent accounts.
On the other hand, considering that we are trying to go back 2000 years to recreate what happened, it is remarkable that we have anything at all.
My comments are probably only worth $0.02, but there they are.
-
You know what I find interesting. The Major was very fond of his "not so deadly" weapons, until he saw that he was losing control over some of his people. At which point he didn't hesitate to apply deadly force to people to keep them under this thumb.I loved the idea of tazer-gun things. Deadly weapons set to a not-so-deadly function.
I guess it always seems interesting to me in these kind of stories how "benevolent" the leadership acts, until the people start to make choices away from the leadership. Characters like the Major seem unable to let people choose for themselves.
-
I hope it's ok to post about some of these "children's" stories, but I enjoy reading them.
This is about a family in England who manages to buy their first motor car. They find an old "one-of-a-kind" broken down jalopy (with a 12 cylinder, 8 L motor
). Mr Potts rebuilds the car. One day, they decide to go to the beach (along with the rest of England) and get stuck in a traffic jam. After insulting the drive, the car convinces Mr Potts to push a lever that extends wings and causes the car to fly over the traffic to a sand bar. The tide nearly strands them and they discover that the car is amphibious. They "drive" across the channel to France, where the help capture "Joe the monster," a notorious criminal.The book was a lot of fun.
Interesting side notes that I learned as part of reading the book.
1) The author is the same Ian Fleming who authored the James Bond books. It was published in '63, just before his death.
2) The movie screenplay was written by Roald Dahl.
-
A few different thoughts:This was interesting. Any thoughts?
1) While Christians often criticize LDS for the 8th article of faith ("...as far as it is translated correctly."), it seems that, at least at some level, Christians also believe in "as far as it is translated correctly." I find it admirable that they will put forward their best scholarship to try to come up with the best translation they can.
2) The bit about the story of the adulterous woman that is now in John's gospel, but doesn't appear to have been something John put in was interesting. The conclude that it is an actual event that early copyists tried to shoehorn somewhere in the Bible so the story wouldn't get lost. It is just an interesting part of how the Bible seems to have come together over the centuries.
-
How about this one:Are we ever guilty of doing this?
If memory serves, it was during my final year at BYU-Provo (though it could have been shortly after graduation). I think everyone is familiar with the strict dress and grooming standard BYU requires to be a good student, but which aren't required of all church members to be good church members. My wife and I were visiting family in southern Idaho and had stopped at a restaurant in Logan. Our server was a young man. The first thing I noticed about him was that he had a pony tail (which means is hair was too long). I immediately felt smug and superior because, "he wouldn't be 'worthy' to enter the testing center to take a test, or check out a book from the HBLL." The 2nd thing I noticed about him was what looked like garments under his shirt. The Spirit immediately convicted me. I don't know for sure if this young man was even LDS, but for all I knew, he could have been an RM, temple worthy, EQ president in his student ward, or otherwise a faithful member of the church. I don't think I've ever been outwardly judgmental of others, but I realized in that moment that I need to make sure that I try not to see people through the lens of my own perceptions of right and wrong which can be superficial, but to look at them through what God defines as right and wrong.
I think one way we do this is to judge each other based on certain "cultural" norms that we have been practicing for years or generations, but which aren't really part of the gospel, or that are "policy" type things that can change.
-
I'm in the middle of a book my daughter suggested to me. It's an old book ('83) written by Gerald Lund (who also wrote The Work and the Glory). It's science fiction set in the near future after "The Termination" (aka nuclear holocaust). We follow the story of Eric Lloyd who is a member of a small village living in what was Star Valley Wyoming. The village is surviving on what they managed to gather before the holocaust and what they can gather from the land around them. One day, a company from the Alliance of Four Cities visits and captures the community. They are taken to Shalev, a new city built up to preserve western civilization. Among the founders of the city is a brain scientist who develops an implant that causes intense whenever the implantee feels certain negative emotions (like anger). Through these implants, the people of Shalev have developed a society free of crime, anger, poverty -- a nice little utopia. Eric and some friends decide to take exception to this society, and decide they want no part.
That's as far as I've got so far. It has an interesting premise about free will/choice vs. conditioning. I'll have to keep reading to see how they make out trying to avoid being forced into this society.
-
Finished, and with a very different ending from the movie. (spoilers ahead, if you don't want to know how it ends) In both cases, the African Queen is sunk in a storm. In the movie, she remains somewhat afloat just below the surface, and the Louise by pure chance happens to run into her, setting off the explosives and sinking the Louise. In the book, nothing of the kind happens. Rose and Alnutt, in an act of mercy by the German captain, are turned over to the British forces nearby and eventually get sent to some consul on the African coast where they can get married and return to England. The Louise is sunk by two British naval ships that are trucked in overland.
What I find really interesting, I guess, is in all of the wasted effort by Rose and Alnutt in coming down the river. Their purpose in setting out on the expedition is to "strike a blow for England." In the end, their death defying effort to come down the river, fight through rapids, marshes, malaria, and so on did nothing. The regular army was already well on their way to capturing the lake. The only result of the adventure is that Rose and Charlie fall in love.
I'm not really good at discussing the meaning of literature, but it just struck me as an interesting commentary on life. How many of our "adventures" completely miss their target or prove to be worthless, except in a lesson learned, or some other "incidental" blessing that is gained. Or perhaps it shows how much life is about the journey and not necessarily about a specific goal or target.
-
My knowledge of the resurrection helped me cope with the loss of my first born as a baby.
-
As suggested by my username, I've "been there, done that." I wish I had some good advice. I know there was a time (about late elementary into Jr High, so about the same age as your daughter) where I took the teasing pretty personally. It seems my mom used to just tell me that that's the way I was (along with many in her family). I don't know your daughter, but I might suggest that part of the difficulty comes with the age.
I'm not sure how much of it was "conscious decision" and how much was pure luck, but I learned to accept myself as short, and even learned to take some pride in it. How many times did I climb into the back seat of a car with a bunch of other guys, and while they complained and bemoaned the lack of leg room, I could stretch out and be comfortable.
I'm not really sure how to teach it, but many of us short people learn certain truths about "body image" from being short that I hope your daughter learns. Learns to accept herself as she is, learns to recognize some of the advantages to being short, and to learn that, when it really counts in life, physical stature isn't important. ("Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" kind of stuff).
-
Been listening to a recorded version of The African Queen by C. S. Forester. The movie has long been one of our favorites, so I decided to see what the original story added.
Written in 1935, the story is set in German Central Africa in WW I. Rose is a "straight-laced" missionary whose brother dies. She "hooks up" with Alnutt and The African Queen and convinces Alnutt to take her down the river to "strike a blow for England" against the German occupiers. The story recounts their journey down the river overcoming various difficulties with the river and the boat.
I still have ~45 minutes left of the recording, so I haven't quite reached the end. A couple of observations so far:
1) Hepburn and Bogart did not prepare me for the sensuality displayed in the book. For something written in the depression, it was rather shocking when Rose and Alnutt ended up sleeping together (unmarried and all
). Forester doesn't go into pornographic detail, but he doesn't leave any doubt about the nature of their relationship. Just a word of warning to those who would find this objectionable.2) It has been a while since I saw the movie, but it seems that Bogart was a stronger character than Alnutt was portrayed in the book. I don't know how real feminists would feel about the story, but it really seems that Rose is the real strong character in the book, and Alnutt is often feeding off of Rose's strengths rather than being strong himself.
3) I can't tell if Forester has a positive or negative view of religion. He seems to spin Rose's "loss of virtue" as a positive, in that she is casting off the shackles of religion. But, later, we find her extremely penitent for her lack of prayer and attention to such duties, but not entirely repentant of her sexual relationship with Alnutt.
In the next couple of days, I'll find out how their "blow for England" goes. At some point, I'll probably pull out the movie with my wife and watch it, too.
-
I read through the plagues/exodus the other night, and it occurred to me that the events recounted would represent a very significant event in Egyptian history. So I got to wondering if there have been any accounts (probably from the Egyptian perspective) of the events in Exodus.
-
Thank you for the comments. If I may respond to some of the questions/comments:
She's early in her 2nd decade (how's that for obscure?) so she's starting to reach an age where I want to make sure I give her a proper perspective on the priesthood and it's role vs. personal faith and prayer. She and I both have a similar cough and we've been to the doctors to rule out serious causes. It appears to be a manifestation of acid reflux. Mostly the effect on her sleep is in getting to sleep. Once she's asleep, she will sleep fine all night. The other effect is that she gets anxious about it, which aggravates the cough. As I see it, the effect the blessing is similar to a "placebo" in that it quiets those anxieties so she can relax and go to sleep. My fear is that the blessing becomes merely a part of the ritual, and she becomes dependent on it as a matter of ritual rather than a real attempt to call upon the powers of heaven.
Priesthood blessings are not aspirin.
I guess in a larger context, these are the two views I've been trying to balance myself over the years. I have often noticed in myself that I will wait until I am nearly on my death bed or nearly overcome by some challenge before I will turn to the priesthood to receive a blessing. I feel like we are missing out when we reserve priesthood blessing for "rare" and "special" occasions only. I think I would prefer to err on the side of giving her a blessing even if I don't feel it is necessary or expedient.I had a stake president tell me that you can't ask for to many blessings.
When you say, "priesthood blessings are not aspirin." what do you mean?
on edit: or perhaps from a different angle. what is the difference between faith in God or faith in the priesthood and "faith" in a "placebo"
-
A situation is developing with my daughter that is concerning me. To try to be brief, she has a chronic cough that isn't serious, but it often makes it difficult for her to sleep. Or, at least she thinks it will make it difficult for her to sleep. She is getting into the habit of asking for a blessing before bed, and it seems to help her sleep. What I'm worried about is that she is going to become "psychology dependent" on the blessing to sleep even when it isn't necessary. I don't want to deny my daughter her privilege to call on the priesthood when she needs help, but I also don't want her to think of the priesthood as a crutch without which she can't sleep.
Any opinions? Am I making too much of it? Should I do something to make sure she learns not to rely too heavily on the priesthood for "routine" problems?
-
Pardon my ignorance, but can you explain to me the significance of Ash Wednesday? I know Lent is a time of "fasting"/abstinence, but what happened 40 days before Christ's death that is being commemorated with Ash Wednesday?
-
Started reading Matt 26 last night about the woman who annointed Christ with the ointment "for his burial." The same story is repeated in Mark 14 and John 12. In each account, Christ defends her actions as something she was doing in preparation for his death/burial. I recall many lessons/discussions where it is pointed out that the apostles didn't seem to pick up on Christ's prophecies concerning his death. I guess it was just interesting that this woman (Mary according to John) seemed to pick up on the fact that Christ was destined to die soon.
-
I can't remember when or where it was, but I recall one Easter where a class or a teacher or something like that took me (us) through the last week of Christ's life in the week leading up to Easter. Ever since, I've always had a little of a soft spot for the entire week leading up to Easter. Sometime I would like to find a decent "study guide" or similar to use during Holy Week to refresh my memory on the details leading up to Christ's death/resurrection.
Do any of you do anything special during the week leading up to Easter?
-
Thanks, Pam, and then onto vs. 9 "We have not: for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us."
-
I hope it's not too nitpicky, but, for further clarification, does "sexual relations" only mean vaginal intercourse, or are we allowed to include other sexual behaviors in there? Looking back over my life, I see that Dr Chapman's physical touch love language applies to me. Which means not only does intercourse make me feel loved, but so do all the other things like kissing, hugging, cuddling, etc. In that respect, I think I could marry someone with a chronic inability to engage in intercourse, as long as she was willing to a) vailidate my sexuality as normal and important, b) continue to engage in other forms of physical affection, and c) express a willingness to explore our sexuality beyond simple intercourse.Quote Originally Posted by PrinceofLight2000
Does physical intimacy only consist of sexual relations?
For the purpose of this discussion, yes.
That's spoken from what I know now. I think I could have gotten into a lot of trouble based on what I knew back then. I don't think I knew how important sex was when I was single. I had grown up in the church and been taught all about how sex (at least outside of marriage, but I don't know if that last part got emphasized enough) was dirty, sinful, ugly, etc. I remember many times being taught that sex had little if anything to do with love. "Good girls (and guys) don't" and so on. Nobody really taught how important sex can be to the overall health of a marriage relationship.
As for the "test drive" approach. Looking back, I think one of the major contributors to our sexless marriage was my own inhibitions about talking about sex. I never learned as a young person how to really talk about my sexuality in a safe, healthy, normative way. Most of the discussions I had were condemning of sex, and so I never learned how to talk about my feelings and desires. Now, I think one of the major contributors to our inability to make it better is that I have a very hard time talking about it with my wife in a healthy way. John Gottman says that it is more important how we deal with conflict rather than what the specific complaint is that predicts happiness in marriage. What I think the law of chastity can do for an engaged couple is force them to learn to talk about their sexual desires/expectations/fears with each other. That can set a foundation for talking about sex after marriage that simply "test driving" may not set.
That said, I think part of the issue with the law of chastity is that it is so often taught in a way that gives rise to things like the "good girl syndrome" that Laura Brotherson talks about. I sometimes wonder if our chasitity lessons wouldn't be significantly improved if we included some discussion of things like Dr. Chapman's love languages where we could explain to our youth that some people will find sex an important part of how they give/receive love. Or Dr. Harley's stuf about how sexual fulfillment is a legitimate and often very important "need" for keeping a couple together. Sometimes I think it would help them a lot if we showed them better how sex fits into a healthy marriage rather than harping incessantly on the evils of extra-marital sex.
(I hope some of that makes sense)
-
I find it an interesting contrast to Laman and Lemuel. I can't remember the exact reference, but it's right after Nephi goes through the vision of the tree of life, he finds his brothers complaining that they can't understand their father's vision. Nephi asks them if they have inquired of the Lord, to which they reply that the Lord doesn't make such things known to them. They didn't believe God would make things known to them so they wouldn't ask.
Yes, it is amazing that God can make things known unto us.
-
As a scientist, my thought on Pres. Kimball's quote is that it is the kind of assertion that really needs some data behind it to back it up. Whether his "data" came from LDS Family Services or from discussions among the brethren during their weekly meetings, I don't think the data he based his assertion on is available anywhere. In Pres. Kimball's defense, many others will list "sexual difficulties" as a major cause of divorces, so, while it may not really be the most important or most numerous cause of divorce, it is probably a significant cause.
John Gottman who has published books and articles based on his research in his "love lab" at the University of Washington seems to suggest something more like what Gwen suggested -- it isn't so much about the specific topic that a couple struggles with (sex, money, in-laws, etc.) but how they deal with those difficulties that predicts divorce.
Let's not put all of the responsibility for a couple's sexuality on "Adam's" head. It takes two to tango, and Eve needs to do her part, too, to make sure the relationship works.My take on this dynamic is that, like Adam, we ought to go to great lengths to make sure Eve is happy in bed.
-
Randomly opened my scriptures the other night and started reading the book of Joshua. A couple of things that caught my attention.
In 1:4, it appears to me that Joshua is promised that the Israelite's inheritance would extend all the way to the Euphrates River. It doesn't seem like even at their greatest extend under King David that they ever got close to as far as the Euphrates. How do scholars/others view this prophecy? Does it maybe refer to the time taken in captivity (Daniel's time)? Maybe something yet to be fulfilled? Maybe something else that I'm not understanding?
In chapter 2, the story of Rahab impressed me -- in particular Rahab's faith in a foreign god. She was willing to stand up to her own king in hiding the Israelite scouts. I'm guessing that she would have been facing charges similar to treason (which is usually punishable by death) all because she believed the Israelite God, "is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath." (2:11)
-
Or maybe something like what Alma the Elder did when he was baptized, essentially baptizing himself (see Mosiah 18)
Or perhaps more like what Joseph Smith and Olivery Cowdery were told to do by baptizing each other. There would have been 11 others called to the apostleship with Nephi, so perhaps one of the other apostles baptized Nephi.
Quick observation on the Israelites and snakes
in Scripture Study Forum
Posted
One of my favorite stories from the OT is where the Lord sends serpents to to bite the Israelites, then Moses makes the brass serpent, and whoever looks on Moses's serpent is healed (Numbers 21:6-9). In vs. 7, the Israelites ask that the serpents be taken away. I guess it struck me that, rather than removing the serpents as requested, the Lord provided an alternate "salvation." The serpents remain, but the Israelites need not be killed, by looking to God for deliverance.
I guess in someways, life is like that. Rather than removing/eliminating sources of sin or difficulty in our lives, God provides a way to overcome the trials and temptations that we face. As described so well by Alma (Alma 33), the serpent created by Moses is symbolic of Jesus.