MrShorty

Well, if we're making memes in this thread, this is how y'all look to me.

Very sad day.
 

[briefly looks up at this thread, goes back to re-reading Dune for the 5th time, in anticipation of the upcoming movie.]

I think @MormonGator has a point though, in the way we in the West see this stuff. 
It's a fact that we're constantly bombarded with media and clothing styles meant to appeal to peoples' sexual desires, and it isn't just men.  Pick up any random romance novel, any drama TV show or movie, and most comedies... Somebody is getting cheated on.  It's our favorite source of drama as a culture, and boy, does this culture love to lure people away from their spouses.  We're surrounded by media that wants us to think about sex 24/7 if at all possible and so it's more critical now than ever before that the marriage be able to push back against it. 
If the bedroom cools down in a marriage then temptation has a much easier time getting in.  Even marriage counsellors and therapists will tell you exactly the same thing @MormonGator said.  
I agree with you that divorce has more to do with a lack of love than a lack of pouncing each other, but a bad sex life where there used to be a good one is one of the primary symptoms of that emotional loss.

Mormons?

 
 
Ahhh...probably going to get some hate for that one...
 
how about the Telestials?

A couple of thoughts:
Is this an example of "accommodationism"? It is a concept we have brought up with other difficult scriptural/revealed topics -- that God "adapts" His revelations/teachings to accommodate our sensibilities when we are unable to support His "higher" teachings. "I see a lot of people unwilling to follow the policy as is, that means My children are not, yet, fully ready for this policy, so I will take it back until they are." How do we feel about this kind of accommodationism?
Could this be an example of how common consent works in the modern church? Rather than formally voting on something, something is imposed from the top down, and the rank and file "vote"/express common consent by choosing to follow or not. MoE mentioned several lower level leadership who refused (or were just disinclined) to enforce the old policy. When enough rank and file and lower leadership are unwilling to "follow" a top down policy like this, is the retraction an expression of "the Church body is not unified in accepting this policy, so we need to retract it." I know we are not fond of this kind of "grass-roots" bottom up influences, but maybe they legitimately exist?
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive either. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that might subversive, might be interesting, might be worthy of infractions, might be worthy of likes, might be worthy of moderator intervention, might be much ado about nothing, I don't know (but this is the internet so all kinds of meaningful and/or meaningless things get said).

LDStalkers who later became LDSnetters who later became Mormonhubrists who later became ????
Right. so maybe Thirdhoursaurs?

LDStalkers who later became LDSnetters who later became Mormonhubrists who later became ????
Right. so maybe Thirdhoursaurs?

Per Acts 2:1-15, the gift of tongues was received by the primitive Church at the third hour on the day of Pentecost.
So—how about “tonguelings”?
Or, Pentecostals?

Condemning bad behavior and sin is itself commendable and even desirable. But don't condemn yourself, any more than you would condemn your neighbor for his weaknesses. Though you appear to be uncommonly courageous in your honest self-examination, you do not have a God's-eye view of things. Please don't let your rigorous honesty bleed over into self-condemnation. You should show yourself the same charity you would extend to others. Not sure how that's done, but that's certainly the path.

This is great! Now we can include @NeuroTypical's Bishop in the blsckmail campaign. That should increase what we can demand.

Interesting. 
One of the unintended consequences of irrationally redefining significant terms like "marriage" and "family," is it tilts towards chaos and away from order. The issue of "common law" as it relates to same-gender roommates is a case in point. Marriage between same-gender siblings or other close family members is another.  Etc. The mind-boggling and frustrating permutation continue to unravel 
As things now stand,  there are 16 states with common law marriages, several of which have already recognized same-sex common law marriages.  There are four general requiremements (note that sexual relations is not included among them):
What makes this more challenging, is that although only 16 states recognize common law marriages, most all the states recognize the marriages of other states (including common law). So, if a couple moved from a state where they qualified as a common law marriage,, they should legally be recognized as such in the new state of residence. (ibid)
Taking this one step further, a case in South Caroline  ruled that the common law status applied retroactively (prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in the state)(ibid)
As for the Church, it doesn't recognize common law marriages, and as for same-sex roommates, I suppose it depends upon the last 2 general requirements, if not also sexual relations. 
Thanks, -Wadse Englund-
 

That seems to me though, the same as an unmarried, unrelated man and woman living together. I've seen people denied recommends for that, even when they claim there is no sexual relationship involved. You would be putting yourself in a hugely, tempting situation if you were attracted to the same sex, married someone of that sex, and lived together. Is that truly any different from my earlier example? To me it seems like being an alcoholic and keeping an open bottle of whiskey you can sniff occasionaly, but swearing you'll never drink it. Some might be able to do it, most will fail.

We have a shiny brand-spanking new bishop as of last week.  You can still see that new bishop look in his eyes as he is gaining an understanding of the magnitude of his calling.  It was a late night last night, he was meeting with a single sister, I was the other priesthood holder in the building.  After she left and he was able to take his first breath for the entire evening, we had this conversation:
"Bishop, I'm being blackmailed by some people on the internet.  They've discovered something about me they figure is shameful and disgusting.  And they're threatening to make it public, and tell you.  So I need to confess it to you first."
"Ok, what is it?"
"I like pineapple on pizza.  I'm not sure about the churches stand on this.  Is it the abomination these internet people think it is?"
He looked at me solemnly for a moment.  Or perhaps he was looking through me, gaining inspiration and direction. He had a question.
"Do you have ham on the pizza at the same time?"  When I answered in the affirmative, he told me pineapple on pizza was acceptable, but only in the presence of ham or Canadian bacon. 
 
IN YOUR FACE HATERS!

What happened to that massive peak on the exponential scale graph?
It was a bump on the log.

Resulting, of course, in “The War of 1812” (spoiler:  the wife won).

You can describe your dinner as: "The Great Salad of 1810".

Even after 2+ years of having this car I'm still reeling form the fact that with the car's built-in voice commands, I've literally had a conversation with my car... and it can (and has), on its own initiative, used my phone to place a phonecall that I wasn't involved in.  (It can call a phone number and upload a vehicle health report which can be accessed online.) 
Yeah.  My car placed a phonecall, I've had conversations with it (and I'm not even crazy.)  And there's nothing particularly special about it.  We're living in the future.
And then... It hits me...
OMG I LITERALLY OWN A TALKING CAR.
You can call me Michael Knight.

My family has been bugging me to give my car a name... and now I have it... My car's name is K.I.T.T.  What do you think?  Not the same but... not too different:

(Not my actual car, but this is pretty close to what it looks like.)  
 

So my car is in the shop right now for a recall to replace a pin in the steering column that was manufactured to be too short.  Given that there is an actual recall on it, we may safely assume a few late model Ford Fusions went out of control and crashed, which is not only how they realized there was a defect,  but that it was going to happen often enough that the less expensive option was to recall the vehicle rather than absorb the lawsuits.
So I take my car to the dealership (and I needed an oil change anyway) yesterday.  Now, I know how dealerships are.  I used to work at a dealership as a tech, so I can translate for you what I was told, for your Friday amusement:
 
When I asked for a quote on a transmission service:
"That's $250.  We flush the lines and replace the fluid with fresh, new transmission fluid.  That doesn't include the filter."
Translation:  We have a very expensive machine that pushes transmission fluid throughout the system and we need to overcharge you in order to recover the cost.
The actual procedure:  Drain the transmission fluid and refill.  (No, they don't drop the pan and replace the filter anymore, apparently.)  I  guess use the machine to flush it out.  Maybe.  Assuming the machine is in good working order.
 
So I get a voicemail yesterday evening to tell me that the oil change part was done, but they noticed some items I needed:
Air Filter: $20 installed (not too bad.  Don't really have anything to say about this.)
Cooling system flush: $160 (another expensive machine that may or may not use)  
The actual procedure:  Drain the coolant from the radiator and refill.  Maybe use the machine.  Maybe.
 
And then, my favorite part:
"We went to check your brakes but we couldn't get the wheels off, because the lugnut caps are swollen."  (Many late model Ford lugnuts are regular nuts with a chrome cap covering them.  Rust builds up between the cap and the lugnut causing the cap to swell, meaning you'd need to use a hammer to get a lug wrench or socket onto the nut, or use a larger size if you're lucky.  I already knew this because I did the rear brakes on my car in the driveway last year and I had to go through that headache.)  "If we force them off we could crack the caps."  (I'd say that's a good thing.  Then I can get a lug wrench on 'em easier.) "So we should replace all those which would run you $129."
No, that wasn't a typo.  They want 129 bucks for a set of lugnuts that would eventually have exactly the same problem.
Translation:  These otherwise ordinary lugnuts can be had for less than $30 for a set of 20 at any aftermarket parts shop but we're marking them up insanely for the blue oval logo on the package.  Hopefully then we can try and sell you brakes if you need them once the wheels are off.  In the meantime, we won't even check because if we mess up a lugnut we'd have to replace it for free if at all.
The beauty of such a sale is that not only would they make a huge profit margin on those lugnuts, the tech doesn't have to be paid flat rate for the time it takes to replace them since he'd be removing the nuts anyway just to check the brakes.  This is especially true if he were to replace the brakes.
So I called back this morning and left a message to not do any of that and to please go ahead and do the recall and button the car up.  10 minutes later I get a call that it's done and ready to go.  (This suggests to me that the recall may have been done already as well, but that it's easier to sell work to a customer if the car is still actively being worked on than if it had all been done and was ready to go.)
 
I write this not to bash the dealership.  It isn't that they're lying.  It's just that when you talk to the service advisor for a shop like that they have the advantage of superior knowledge of what's  going on.  They generally are not setting out to rip people off or to mislead... It's just that the advisor has a conflict of interest.  He's supposed to advise you of the condition of the car and your options, but he's also got to make sales.  That means they're gonna tend to emphasize the idea that you NEED this stuff, and they'll tend not to bring up less profitable alternatives.  Some places will actually present ALL the options, even if it doesn't benefit them, some places won't.  That should be your litmus test.  
For me personally, as a former auto tech, I know how to spot this stuff so I really don't care about establishing a relationship with a shop because I know how to interpret what they're telling me whether they're being candid or not.  We don't need to be friends, just fix my frickin' car.  Those other things I can and will do myself.  Heck, my other vehicle is a battered 20 year old Chevy pickup so working on my Fusion is a breeze.
This is why I always strongly recommend that if you aren't knowledgeable about cars, you always consult with someone who is before you agree to anything.  Going in there without that knowledge is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
 

A couple of thoughts:
Is this an example of "accommodationism"? It is a concept we have brought up with other difficult scriptural/revealed topics -- that God "adapts" His revelations/teachings to accommodate our sensibilities when we are unable to support His "higher" teachings. "I see a lot of people unwilling to follow the policy as is, that means My children are not, yet, fully ready for this policy, so I will take it back until they are." How do we feel about this kind of accommodationism?
Could this be an example of how common consent works in the modern church? Rather than formally voting on something, something is imposed from the top down, and the rank and file "vote"/express common consent by choosing to follow or not. MoE mentioned several lower level leadership who refused (or were just disinclined) to enforce the old policy. When enough rank and file and lower leadership are unwilling to "follow" a top down policy like this, is the retraction an expression of "the Church body is not unified in accepting this policy, so we need to retract it." I know we are not fond of this kind of "grass-roots" bottom up influences, but maybe they legitimately exist?
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive either. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that might subversive, might be interesting, might be worthy of infractions, might be worthy of likes, might be worthy of moderator intervention, might be much ado about nothing, I don't know (but this is the internet so all kinds of meaningful and/or meaningless things get said).

A couple of thoughts:
Is this an example of "accommodationism"? It is a concept we have brought up with other difficult scriptural/revealed topics -- that God "adapts" His revelations/teachings to accommodate our sensibilities when we are unable to support His "higher" teachings. "I see a lot of people unwilling to follow the policy as is, that means My children are not, yet, fully ready for this policy, so I will take it back until they are." How do we feel about this kind of accommodationism?
Could this be an example of how common consent works in the modern church? Rather than formally voting on something, something is imposed from the top down, and the rank and file "vote"/express common consent by choosing to follow or not. MoE mentioned several lower level leadership who refused (or were just disinclined) to enforce the old policy. When enough rank and file and lower leadership are unwilling to "follow" a top down policy like this, is the retraction an expression of "the Church body is not unified in accepting this policy, so we need to retract it." I know we are not fond of this kind of "grass-roots" bottom up influences, but maybe they legitimately exist?
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive either. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that might subversive, might be interesting, might be worthy of infractions, might be worthy of likes, might be worthy of moderator intervention, might be much ado about nothing, I don't know (but this is the internet so all kinds of meaningful and/or meaningless things get said).

A couple of thoughts:
Is this an example of "accommodationism"? It is a concept we have brought up with other difficult scriptural/revealed topics -- that God "adapts" His revelations/teachings to accommodate our sensibilities when we are unable to support His "higher" teachings. "I see a lot of people unwilling to follow the policy as is, that means My children are not, yet, fully ready for this policy, so I will take it back until they are." How do we feel about this kind of accommodationism?
Could this be an example of how common consent works in the modern church? Rather than formally voting on something, something is imposed from the top down, and the rank and file "vote"/express common consent by choosing to follow or not. MoE mentioned several lower level leadership who refused (or were just disinclined) to enforce the old policy. When enough rank and file and lower leadership are unwilling to "follow" a top down policy like this, is the retraction an expression of "the Church body is not unified in accepting this policy, so we need to retract it." I know we are not fond of this kind of "grass-roots" bottom up influences, but maybe they legitimately exist?
I don't think they are necessarily mutually exclusive either. Anyway, just a couple of thoughts that might subversive, might be interesting, might be worthy of infractions, might be worthy of likes, might be worthy of moderator intervention, might be much ado about nothing, I don't know (but this is the internet so all kinds of meaningful and/or meaningless things get said).

https://conservativememes.com/i/never-be-afraid-to-stand-up-for-what-you-believe-23e5482329bf489697849a4fcb9d3504

@NeuroTypical and @mirkwood do indeed have grave confessions to make, and sinful as it is to put non-Australian pineapple on your pizza, this is a good confession to begin with, although its only a beginning. Unfortunately,  "there are also many other things which Jesus @NeuroTypicaldid, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (New Testament | John 21:25)
And as for @mirkwood, I'm reminded of Moses 1:33  "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose."
Well now we know the purpose of all those other worlds - to contain all the books for @mirkwood 
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33)