classylady got a reaction from Vort in MacArthur Park
I remember Donna Summer’s version very well. I used to play the song on the piano and sing the lyrics. I never stopped to think what the lyrics meant, it was just a fun song to play and to sing. But, today, I’m struggling!!! I listened to Donna sing it several days ago after reading the post and now I can’t get it out of my head! Three straight days in my head of “MacArthur’s Park is melting in the dark, All the sweet green icing flowing down, Someone left the cake out in the rain, I don’t think that I can take it, ‘Cause it took so long to bake it, And I’ll never have that recipe again, Oh no!”
classylady reacted to Carborendum in Ruth and The Feet
Most people reading the Book of Ruth tend to get hung up on the whole thing about Boaz's feet. What was up with that?
What I was surprised by was how many people assume the worst and believe that Ruth was doing something untoward to Boaz. Even Matthew Henry seems to get this impression. But he relents and chooses to believe it only "seemed" that way. But it still shouldn't have been done. So, he splits the difference and blames Naomi for encouraging her. Still a LOT of commentators (both past centuries, and current ones) tend to believe it was a euphemism. Many of those pushing the unseemly narrative show their ignorance of the Hebrew language and of the customs of the people of that day. But most of the more modern ones tend to be less scholarly. The more scholarly sources seem to point out historical and cultural context that indicates that it was all above board.
So, why should we care? She was human. She could sin and repent. Why bother clearing her name? Well, we certainly don't want to tarnish the reputation of someone who was deemed a virtuous woman, especially if we do so simply out of ignorance.
We know that she was a woman who was touched by the Spirit. A convert to the religion of Israel, she left her homeland and all she knew to live by the commandments of a God she came to accept as her own.
The Law of Moses required that her near kinsman take her to wife. And (as far as she knew at the time) that was Boaz. It was her actual RIGHT to demand that he marry her and care for her. But she didn't do that. And the way she went about it showed just how humbly she went about it.
First, it was a custom for some trusted servants to sleep at or near the feet of their master (like a dog, one might say). So, when it says she was sleeping at his feet, she was really sleeping at his feet. And it was a sign of humility and submission.
This was further amplified by uncovering his feet.
This process has been called chalitzah. The shoe thing was part of Middle Eastern culture prior to the Law of Moses. It was a means of "sealing the deal." That's why it was added as part of the instruction for chalitzah. Nowadays it is the more common choice among Jews who have been widowed because of various practical reasons. I don't know how much they spit in each others' eyes anymore.
Basically, Ruth was letting him know that she was aware of his duty under the law, but she was also saying that she was perfectly willing to accept chalitzah if he chose not to. She already began the process of rejection by uncovering his feet so it would be easier to take his shoe off. (Remember he was in the threshing room floor. One does not walk around that with bare feet). She did this to let him know that she was not embarassing him in public and forcing him into a marriage that he wouldn't want (there was a certain amount of shame when a man chose this and the woman did not). So, she just brought the choice to him in the least threatening way possible.
That is what the feet thing was about.
I'm not going to go into all the linguistic reasoning why the "euphemistic" interpretation would be stretching the imagination. But suffice it to say, it just wasn't so.
As Boaz instructed Ruth to leave, he wanted her to remain stealthy so people didn't get the wrong idea. There was no "wrong idea" if they had actually done the deed. It is much more likely that nothing immoral occurred, and they both wanted to keep it that way. They also didn't want anyone else to think incorrectly.
When Boaz spoke with the near kinsman in front of a crowd of witnesses, he took his shoe off of his foot to seal the deal that Boaz would marry Ruth and that the kinsman wanted nothing to do with her.
EDIT: An interesting thing to note was that Ruth was in fact offering a proposal of marriage when she said
And the "spread thy skirt" was actually a euphemism. But it was meant to be within a formal marriage.
Further evidence that this was still chaste is
If they had already done it, he wouldn't have to promise "I *will* do" emphasizing the fact that she is a VIRTUOUS WOMAN.
classylady got a reaction from Vort in Sunday School
I too have found that the youth understand more than we think they do. I’m working with 11 year olds to 14 year olds and that is quite a maturity age gap between them. Some of my 11 year olds are still so sheltered. Some not. I don’t mince words as we talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the people in the Old Testament. I try to bring attention to their own experiences that correlate to what happened in the scriptural experiences and share my own life experiences to enhance and bring interest to the lesson. Hopefully, it will stick with them. If your insight is correct in that the youth remember the lesson material, that is a good thing. I also hope they can remember the feelings.
My own personal experience is I don’t remember anything much that my teachers taught me, or even remember the feelings. About all I remember is that one teacher told us she got married at the age of 14, (she said she wasn’t pregnant), and I was shocked! I was about that age myself, maybe a little older, and I could not imagine getting married at that age. She wasn’t too much older than us, probably in her early 20’s. Her parents gave their permission for her marriage, again something I have a hard time understanding. The only other experience I really remember is that one teacher had me babysit her children. I was the only one she trusted to watch her kids, and that made me feel good. That had nothing to do about the lessons at all. Though, I do remember that particular teacher telling us that her first born died of SIDS. So, I tend to remember the personal experiences my teachers told us.
classylady got a reaction from SilentOne in Sunday School
I team teach the combined youth class of 11 to 14 year olds. We try and cover two weeks worth of lessons. It is hard to get both lessons covered, and we usually focus more on one lesson than the other, usually, just highlighting the less covered lesson. I try to follow the spirit as to what the kids need. My intent is to have the kids feel the spirit, for I know, years later they won’t remember what I’ve taught, but hopefully they will remember how they felt. I try to teach the scriptures in a manner that they can understand and to what they are dealing with at their age level.
I’m really amazed at how many of the kids have read the Come Follow Me lesson for that week. And, many do it week after week. At the beginning of class we have each class member talk about their week and their thoughts of the Come Follow Me lesson. They let us know if they’ve read it or not. I am really in awe of the youth I teach. I can tell they are valiant spirits. But, I’m also very aware that Satan will not leave these kids alone. I hope and pray as they grow older and face life’s challenges and trials that they can remember Sister Classylady and her testimony, and know that they can remain strong, repent, and find joy in the gospel.
classylady reacted to NeuroTypical in "To do list" oriented people: how do you best gain a testimony?
Heh - here are 4 bullet points from my story. Perhaps they'll be helpful.
classylady reacted to Grunt in How to treat a hard heart
First, I think we as Saints are way too hard on ourselves. We all put our best foot forward and seem to live perfect lives, but when you peek behind the curtain you'll see we're all as messed up as the next family. After one of my Church meetings the other day, a few members pulled me aside and thanked me for sharing both sides. I'm still not sure what they meant, but I suppose it's because I acknowledge the difficulty as well as the blessings. That doesn't mean I don't knuckle down and follow in faith, but it's not always easy.
Second, I think there isn't a secret answer to changing perspective. A talk, verse, or Hymn can start the journey, but it's a journey. I loved President Nelson's talk yesterday about Spiritual Momentum. If you didn't catch it, please do. In my most humble opinion, attitudes and perspectives are changed through environment and habit. Build a home that is faithful and without sinful distractions. If television, movies, books, or even sometimes people darken your perspective or create doubts, then swap them out for things that bolster your faith. Set a routine of study and prayer. Prayer is incredible, but didn't come easy to me. Study doesn't always have to be sitting and ready scriptures or Come Follow Me, though that is important. It could be listening to talks or reading other faith-building material. Form a routine so that it becomes habit.
Third, sometimes we carry guilt and don't even realize it. Things we need to repent for and/or resolve. They don't have to be sins, but could just be things that weigh heavy on our hearts.
Maybe none of these apply to you, but from time to time they do apply to me so I thought it important enough to share.
classylady reacted to Still_Small_Voice in Elder Holland talk April 2022
I was reading through the comments on YouTube with Elder Oaks talk reaffirming The Family, A Proclamation to the World. Most were positive but some were negative. One said they would be removing their records from Christ's Restored Church.
This is a close quote on one of the comments:
The truths of God and His commandments are immovable. President Oaks said exactly what needed to be said, and he did so lovingly, but without ambiguity. The scriptures teach us to pursue the atonement of Jesus Christ and become more than what we were born into this world. We all have personal struggles, many times which seem insurmountable, but we really need to choose to become something much more than we currently are.
"I was born this way." Yes, perhaps that is the case. But the Lord Jesus Christ did not suffer a horrific torture and death for us to remain complacent to our state of being. He did so that our sins and imperfections are paid for if we pursue repentance. Repentance is change, it is not punishment. We really need to choose to follow the Lord's example in living the way God our Father asks us to. This will transform us from a lesser to a much greater and best version of who we really are as children of God.
"Nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself for it is given unto thee."
classylady reacted to Grunt in Elder Holland talk April 2022
Maybe? As someone who spent all but the last 4 years of his life NOT as a Saint, I don't know (from a mortal perspective). I will certainly say life is better and more fulfilling.
Edited to add: I suppose, as I ponder this, I liken it to going to the gym. I'm in the gym every morning. It's certainly harder than sleeping in or watching television. However, it improves my quality of life. I can do more physically. I'm happier. I'm healthier. The rest of my life is better because of the effort I put into my physical health. I think my life is better because of the effort I put into my spiritual life. That doesn't mean there aren't days when it's time to get up and it takes every ounce of motivation to not roll over and go back to sleep. For me, some days being a Saint is like that. There are aspects of the Church, my faith, and my covenants that I struggle with. But I get up, exercise my testimony and fulfill my calling, and everything falls into place.
classylady reacted to Jane_Doe in Elder Holland talk April 2022
I didn't get the chance to watch conference yesterday, and upon seeing this thread the first talk I watched this morning was Elder Holland's.
Depression & suicide is a topic that in unfortunately very personal to me. I had some major childhood trauma that drove me to deep depression and suicidal thoughts at an extremely young age. It was my secret war-- growing up in the 90's we didn't talk about abuse or depression or suicide. Not a church, not at home, not anywhere. This was my secret war and to my young knowledge I was the only one in the world going through something like this.
Christ & a testimony of Him was literally the only thing that kept me going at points-- the knowledge that at least He knew & understood.
I remember vividly when Elder Holland spoke directly of his own struggles with depression from the General Conference pulpit in "Like a Broken Vessel". It was... huge for me. By then I had actually began to address my struggles in a personal & clinical setting, but hearing of it from the pulpit-- an Apostle's own struggles-- was HUGE for me. That talk is still a major favorite of mine, surpassed only by his later talk "Songs Sung & Unsung". They were instrumental in finally fully healing my wounds.
Watching Elder Holland's latest talk this morning with this thread in mind, I am of two thoughts. The dominate one is how I feel right now, as somebody who's come through that tunnel and now stands on the other side: I loved it in tears. I found it extremely touching, Christ-centered, emphatic, humble and generally very on point. I am so glad to have this spoken from the General Conference pulpit, directly, without euphemism, from an Apostle I know has seen the darkness.
However, thinking of your daughter, I thought of how I would have reacted back then... and that's more of a mixed bag. When I was deep in that pain, many times I didn't want medicine or to be better-- I just wanted to be left alone. In my illness, I thought I "deserved" this and any wanna-be heroes were arrogant & naive fools whom didn't understand the monster I was. It was a point of deep illness, that foundationally warped my perspectives. And frankly made life super hard for me & anyone whom cares (I did/do have many loved ones).
Prayers for you, your daughter, and all of your loved ones.
classylady reacted to LDSGator in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
@classylady @Jedi_Nephite @Grunt @estradling75
This is a video on the missing plane, MH370. Briefly they talk about Ham Radio at about 3:02 and how it could help find the plane!
classylady reacted to Grunt in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
I'd never heard about this before. I'll have to do more research. Here's more data on WSPRnet and the GDTA project
classylady reacted to Carborendum in Malichi's Prophecy - A Study in a Prophetic Role
Here was an interesting comparison of scriptures and how a prophet of God works with it.
3 Ne 25:6
Notice that they are word-for-word identical. And the JST of Malachi offers no change to that verbiage either. But then:
JS-H 1: 39
Before I get into commentary, there is another quote that is vital to the development of this treatise.
D&C 128:18 -- I won't quote the entire verse because it is long. But you can look it up. Here are some excerpts:
The verse as written in Malachi was a correct translation. Christ, himself, spoke those same words to the Nephites. Joseph made no alteration in the JST. If it was correct, then why did Moroni quote it differently?
Scriptures are written to the dispensation which receives the words from the Lord, according to the understanding of the person receiving them. That is why Nephi couldn't explain what happened with the 116 pages. He just knew it was "for a wise purpose in the Lord."
Joseph stated in another discourse that the "turn their hearts" could just as easily mean "to seal". So, why did Moroni not use the word seal when he came to Joseph? Because Joseph didn't know about sealing at that time. He wouldn't have understood it. Line-upon-line. Precept-upon-precept.
When we talk of properly "translating" the Bible (AoF 8) it is easy for us to think it is about interpreting one language into another. But when Joseph says "But it is sufficiently plain to suit my purposes" this lets us know that it isn't necessarily wrong (c.f.3 Ne). It is sometimes/often about interpreting the meaning of the written word to the person who may receive it. This is the role of the prophet.
Part and parcel with this interpretive role is to offer changes to scriptures as it stands (which Joseph did when he offered the JST). Note that this cannot be a blanket freedom to make changes at a whim. Otherwise the written word would be meaningless, and it would be nothing more than a "living breathing document that acts as a guiding light" to us today.
No, the prophet is only allowed to interpret based on newer light and knowledge that he has received from God, not based on man's wisdom.
If that is so, why not change the wording of Malachi to talk about sealing? Because it is sufficiently plain as it is. And the interpretations which have made it into the collective consciousness of the Church already understands this interpretation. No need to change it. And D&C 128 addresses it as well.
So, Moroni "provided clarity" on the verse.
Then Joseph "provided clarity" on Moroni's words indicating that vicarious work for the dead would be involved. This was only after he received the light and knowledge about baptism for the dead (1842).
Later, Joseph "provided clarity" when he learned about sealing (1843). Now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, we see that the original prophecy was incomplete. The curse is abated only when we do proxy work for all salvific ordinances for the dead.
Why am I bringing this up? There is another part of the prophecy.
Once upon a time someone asked what things have been revealed that have been hidden from the world?
My immediate response was vicarious sealing ordinances. The New Testament indicates that they did Baptism for the dead. But it doesn't mention anything about sealing for the dead.
However, I've been pondering this a while. And my mind was called up to AoF 9:
We are about to receive a whole lot more stuff. And far too many people are comfortable in their firm understanding of doctrine and history that they will have a hard time letting go of their pride and comfort to accept/grasp what the Lord has in store for us. And this, more than outside forces, will cause a separation of the wheats and the tares.
I am doing what I can to let go of my own pride. But it really isn't that easy.
classylady reacted to Grunt in Liahona article on infertility - to multiply and replenish the earth
Being sealed to my wife, and then our children, was an incredible event. In a way, I'm glad my kids were older and could experience it.
classylady reacted to Vort in Gays, blacks and the church
Why don't we marry off our six-year-old daughters? It's not politically or socially acceptable today, but that's just the whim of the mob. Maybe in 2040 it will be all the rage–laws will have been changed to accommodate six-year-old brides, and we'll have invented an entirely new vocabulary to describe the sexual experiences of and with a six-year-old girl. And it will be "a beautiful expression of humanity's sexuality." Apologists will doubtless point out comparisons in the animal world. The long history of child brides will be referenced and discussed interminably.
And, of course, many will view the Church narrowly and criticize our old-fashioned, short-sighted, bigoted treatment of the poor repressed six-year-old would-be brides among the Latter-day Saints and their long-suffering suitors who wait only to solemnize their holy union and consummate their love. Without doubt, there will be forward-looking Latter-day Saints complaining from within the flock about the Old White Guys who run the Church and how it really needs to get with the times.
If you stand with the homosexual movement now, will you stand with the six-year-old bride movement then? If not, why not?
This is not about the weirdness or repugnance of homosexuality, or for that matter of child brides. This is about standing for truth. Are we truly to believe that God would say, "Oh, you want child brides, do you? Well, you know, I guess there's really nothing wrong with that, so...sure! Why not?"
Which foundational doctrines can we depend on? Any? Or is it really just a free-for-all, with us "importuning" God until he gets behind whatever harebrained idea we've latched onto? "O Lord, we want to sacrifice our two-year-olds unto Thee because we think that might be pretty cool, and besides, all the other cults are doing it. Seems really progressive. So is it a go?"
We're talking about homosexuality here. Homosexuality. Yes, the practice has been known throughout human history, and even supported, both culturally and legally, in various societies. It has also been repelled and rejected in many others. But in exactly no society that I have ever heard of has the relationship between homosexual "lovers" been formalized as "marriage". Never, until the late 20th century West. Why is that? Why did the homosexual-loving Greeks, who actually built homosexuality into their very society and worldview, nevertheless reserve their term for marriage ONLY for heterosexual couples? Could it be the Greeks recognized the unique importance of the heterosexual couple and their coupling, and reserved both terminology and legal status for that couple because of their importance?
Our world is madness. Society is insane. Not only is homosexuality openly accepted, it is enthusiastically embraced and relentlessly portrayed—always, always, always in a positive light. And no one is allowed to disagree. Oh, you can believe what you want, though you will suffer severe social consequences for saying that homosexuality is a perversion. But try to get TV or radio time. Try to start up a well-written, smart TV show that portrays homosexuality negatively. Try to get any mainstream newspaper or other news source to agree with you and take your part.
Conspiracy? Perhaps not intentional. I don't know. But Satan has been conspiring for millennia, and this is certainly just the latest fruit from that corrupt tree.
I'm just stunned at the sight of Saints of God—good, thoughtful men and women who try to take their covenants to heart—taking up the position that homosexuality is not a bad thing, that the scriptures and prophets do not really teach against them, and that "we need a revelation" so that homosexuals can be sealed to each other in our holy temples (a position that literally does not even mean anything). How is this possible? How can we have fallen so far that some among us can actually hold forth these ideas?
The mind literally boggles.
classylady reacted to Just_A_Guy in First covenant?
Mormon 7 is directed specifically to the descendants of the Lamanites who will read Mormon’s words. Verse 8 admonishes them to “lay hold upon the gospel of Christ, which shall be set before you, not only in this record but also in the record which shall come unto the Gentiles from the Jews, which record shall come from the Gentiles unto you.” The next verse indicates that Mormon’s record is intended to direct them to accept the record of the Jews as well.
Given that we sometimes hear that “Old Testament” and “New Testament” can alternatively be rendered as “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant”— I think that in V 10, “first covenant” may refer to “first testament” or “first record”—ie, the Bible.
In other words, I submit that Mormon wants the descendants of the Lamanites to recognize themselves as the heirs to the people and covenants spoken of in the Bible. I don’t know that Mormon was necessarily trying to specify whether that would be the Adamic or the Noachian or the Abrahamic or the Mosaic or some other covenant—the point is that whatever divine covenants remain in force as to scattered Israel, they apply to the Lamanites as well as to the Israelites.
classylady reacted to Jedi_Nephite in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
My brother drove down with his wife and son yesterday. Since he also passed his General, but doesn’t have an HF radio yet, I invited him to try and make some contacts on my Icom IC-718. I made four contacts. He made six. All of my contacts were stateside, but he was able to make one in Canada. We could hear a couple of QSOs in Rome and Germany very clearly, but, unfortunately, were not able to get through the pileup.
classylady reacted to estradling75 in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
Yes it was... Kinda of an unintentional birthday present to myself
classylady reacted to estradling75 in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
I just passed the test for all three levels last night. The FCC just issued my call sign. Woo Hoo
classylady got a reaction from Jedi_Nephite in Passed the Technician Class test for Ham Radio today
I haven’t attended a ham fest or convention, but I have gone to several ham swap meets. I belong to several ham organizations, the ARRL (American Radio Relay League), and a local amateur radio club, which is one of the largest radio clubs in the US. Our local club has a monthly meeting where we have lectures, door prizes, and several activities throughout the year. It also does winter and summer field days. I also participate weekly on the radio with a Ladies Net and a non-denominational Family History Net.
classylady got a reaction from Jamie123 in What's a popular word, saying or phrase you can't stand?
I bought some kitchen towels this past summer that had pictures of lemons and the saying “Easy Peazy, Lemon Squeezy”.