jerome1232

Is an ES-339 to irreverent for sacrament?

I mean it's got f-holes, that makes it classy right? I can even turn off distortion!
 

Even if we do the paint job in sunburst? 

Oh well, I can barely pick my way through away in a manger at this point anyways.

I used DOSBox when I wanted to play DOS games on my last computer, and Starflight is listed as being compatible with it. I haven't tried it with Windows 10 yet but will do so now.

I guess this seems so obvious to some of us that it never occurs to us that any reasonable person would think otherwise. Of course the Church doesn't claim to be "the sole container of truth"! Having a "fullness of truth" doesn't mean being the unique source or receptacle of all available truth, or even of having possession of all truth. Indeed, if the larger world (especially the larger world that considers itself Christian) did not possess many truths, our work as a Church would be immensely more difficult, seeing as how we would have no common ground with anyone.

Have you tried choosing not to hate them?  I mean, I realize there are some inconveniences with wearing the garment--sometimes significant ones depending on climate, skin conditions, fashion options, etc--but hate is an awfully strong word.
I assume you're familiar with Elder Carlos Asay's article on the garment from some years back, which is still often cited in these sorts of discussions.  Assuming that to be the case, I say this with all the love and respect possible for a random co-traveler in Christ whom I only just now met on the internet:  you know darned well what the counsel means.  Follow it, or not; but don't sully your integrity by pretending that the Church means something other than what it has repeatedly said it means.

I gotta jump in here, on the "doesn't appear handicapped to me" quip.
My wife has rhuematoid arthritis. That's an autoimmune disease where your body attacks the linings in your joints and causes inflammation and pain. It gets bad enough that my wife will sometimes use an electric scooter to get around. But it comes and it goes, sometimes she can be at barely a hobble, other times she can barely get out of bed. Sometimes she's doing okay but if she does a lot of walking, like from the back of the parking lot for example, she'll pay for it with an inflammation attack the next day.
Sometimes people really do have difficulty getting around even if it's not immediately apparent.
 
*Gets down from soap box*

I gotta jump in here, on the "doesn't appear handicapped to me" quip.
My wife has rhuematoid arthritis. That's an autoimmune disease where your body attacks the linings in your joints and causes inflammation and pain. It gets bad enough that my wife will sometimes use an electric scooter to get around. But it comes and it goes, sometimes she can be at barely a hobble, other times she can barely get out of bed. Sometimes she's doing okay but if she does a lot of walking, like from the back of the parking lot for example, she'll pay for it with an inflammation attack the next day.
Sometimes people really do have difficulty getting around even if it's not immediately apparent.
 
*Gets down from soap box*

I gotta jump in here, on the "doesn't appear handicapped to me" quip.
My wife has rhuematoid arthritis. That's an autoimmune disease where your body attacks the linings in your joints and causes inflammation and pain. It gets bad enough that my wife will sometimes use an electric scooter to get around. But it comes and it goes, sometimes she can be at barely a hobble, other times she can barely get out of bed. Sometimes she's doing okay but if she does a lot of walking, like from the back of the parking lot for example, she'll pay for it with an inflammation attack the next day.
Sometimes people really do have difficulty getting around even if it's not immediately apparent.
 
*Gets down from soap box*

Getting into a fight over parking spaces is one of those situations where the best possible outcome entails you “winning” and walking away while a guy who now hates your guts is standing next to your shiny, unattended vehicle with a set of sharp keys in his hand.  

Now we find out which group ranks higher in intersectionality.
In one corner, we have a Muslim woman.
In the other corner, we have a self-identifying trans woman. 
"What do you think, George?  The contestants stack up pretty even, wouldn't you say?"
"I sure would, Mike.  I sure would but you know, this is Canada and right now Canadians are very much in favor of trans people, plus this Muslim woman is working for a private business and you know, Capitalism will cost her some points.
"Great point, George, great point.  Not to mention that even though Islam is favored by the victimhood Olympics, it IS still a mainstream religion and that's really gonna cost her too."
"It sure is. Well, let's go over to the Twitter feed and see where the early SJW rants are headed...."
 

It seems to me you are conflating “justice” with “legal due process”.  Antebellum slaveowners under the Fugitive Slave Act could demand citizens of Northern states cooperate in the apprehension of runaway slaves.  The participants in the Underground Railroad were depriving slaveowners of due process; but no one today would suggest that they were “unjustly” depriving those slaveowners of their “rights”.
Notwithstanding the 12th AofF, an individual’s highest duty is clearly to conscience/God. Obedience to secular legal codes is less a matter of absolute morality than of pragmatism—if a legal code, taken as a whole, provides your subgroup with a net benefit, then it’s in your subgroup’s interest to preserve that code by following as much of it as possible. 

I think for many members, they do the right thing all the time, lead a good life, have a great family and things start to get a bit stale.  You don't find anything new and refreshing.  It is the same stuff.  And maybe it takes a significant trial to remind you of how good you have it.  I recently had a very unwanted trial and it has got me energized again.  I don't recommend going to look for trials..

It is a thing; but has been a thing for 29 years now:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boy-scouts-condoms-jamboree/

Hi. I'm the tech guy.
We have had a MormonHub mobile app on and off the backburner. But we haven't had any plans in the near future for integrating the forums into it. While I agree that push notifications and such would be sweet, the amount of effort that would require to build and maintain that over what other things I could do is just not a priority currently (sorry ) , but I hope one day the forums get enough traction to merit that sort of special attention . Don't get me wrong, you guys are great, and good things happen on the forums all the time, but, tech resources are currently better spent on a number of other projects currently that will get more bang for our buck for spreading the gospel online. 

Also, its just little ol' me maintaining and updating and coding for 100+ websites all the time (among other things). I work on the app occasionally, but other things are higher priority most of the time so, its very slow going.
 If you want to throw out app ideas, I'll read em  no promises they'll ever get implemented though, but always looking for inspiration.

Here is the quote in context. 
One of you, perhaps, has not fully understood until now. Perhaps your father did not talk to you. You may already have been guilty of tampering with these powers. You may even have developed a habit. What do you do then? First, I want you to know this. If you are struggling with this temptation and perhaps you have not quite been able to resist, the Lord still loves you. It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression.

Yes, and that is EXACTLY the point. What is the Church's current stance on necrophilia? Does anyone really know?

I enjoy LDS historical novels. Last fall I read The Undaunted, Only The Brave, To Soar With Eagles and the first four volumes of Fire and Steel. I also read the last book in the Kingdom and the Crown series and the last two volumes in The Work and the Glory series all by Lund. I then read the three volume Come to Zion series by Dean Hughes. Since then I’ve read Christopher Columbus by Clark B. Hinckley, The Silence of God by Gale Sears, The Gospel at 30,000 Feet by Elder Uchtdorf  and I’m currently reading The Cost of Winning by Dean Hughes and The Duscourses of Brigham Young. 
I particularly liked The Undaunted because it is about the Hole in the Rock expedition and my second great grandparents were on that expedition along with some other relatives including the people who were in the last wagon down which is a story unto itself.  All of whom are mentioned in the book.   
After completing The Book of Mormon earlier this year I’m now reading the Old Testament cover to cover. I’m in Numbers. 

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. "Brilliant" barely begins to describe this book. I read this book about 20 years ago. I don't think I had ever worked so hard to read a book, or had so much fun reading one. It has taken on a cult following, and you can find lots of weird groupies who seem to worship at its altar. Ignore them and read the book anyway. It will forever change how you view the human mind, the effort to find truth, and even how your own perceptions are formed. It's not a theistic book at all, but the topics it illuminates have profound ramifications for theists.

When a person deliberately misrepresent another persons position. Who claims to want temperate, rational discussion about ideas, but then insults, and ignores the people and ideas he disagrees with... when he does this then you know his claims are a lie.  
It is a natural human reaction for those who want temperate, rational discussion to ignore those that claim that they do but the repeatedly demonstrate by their actions they do not. Our actions are not because we are Mormon, but because we are human.  And we can judge a person by their repeatedly demonstrated actions

Mostly, I stick to the scriptures and manuals.  Beyond those, Hugh Nibley is the author I've read from the most - his books are written in a way that works for me.  For the most part, I don't think they're as difficult as people make them out to be, though Enoch the Prophet was pretty hard.
Approaching Zion changed the way I think about: the concept of Zion (from a future place and social order to a current state of mind); money, work, generosity, the gifts of God; introduced me to the idea of "goods of first intent"; definitions of sin; preparing for the Second Coming.  Basically, this book is packed with ideas that may force you to think differently about your assumptions on a variety of topics.  I highly recommend it to any who think they are prepared for that.
Lehi in the Desert/The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites added a lot of richness and some additional meaning to the Book of Mormon - simple cultural things that I either never thought of or never noticed, like whether Lehi and his family had camels, why they didn't make fire for a time, just how much time was passing, why the Jaredite usurpers would keep the former king in captivity instead of killing him (thus allowing him to have sons who, somehow, had enough freedom to overthrow the usurper - I mean, just kill the old king already!).  Stuff like that.  This was the easiest of the Nibley books I've read so far.
Old Testament and Related Studies gave me a new perspective on patriarchy and matriarchy.
The World and the Prophets really expanded my understanding and testimony of the importance of living prophets - how the scriptures alone are not enough, while at the same time, reinforcing just how important the scriptures are.  It presented the idea that the prophets, scriptures, and Holy Ghost make up three supporting legs of a testimony, that all three are needed for stability, so to speak.
Oddly enough, Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea series has included several little nuggets of wisdom that have caused me to ponder my view of reality - things like the power of words spoken, the nature of consequences.  Easier to just give some quotes that I pulled out:
That second to last one, about freedom, is one of my favorite quotes of all time.  Lots of people think fiction is a waste of time, or good for nothing but entertainment, I find far to the contrary - I often learn great lessons from fiction.  Terry Goodkind's Faith of the Fallen, which is preceded by nearly 5000 pages in the series, includes the single best (I think perfect) demonstration of why communism, and its precursor socialism, is so very, very evil.  But it is so well-embedded into the story that I think most will not recognize it for what it is.

Annnnnnd another troll thread.  We seem to have an influx lately.

Friend, these are not the words of someone seeking to understand. They are the words of a troll, someone looking for a fight and lyingly pretending to want conversation. Careful, or people might think you're @2ndRateMind.
Oh, wait...

Indeed.... For all the talk Snowflakes and other SJW types give about not judging someone or a group by the color of their skin...  They are totally ok with making such judgements if the person or group happens to be white.
 
 

(I'm using Backroads' post as a springboard for discussion, but my comments are directed generally, not targeted at Backroads.)
You are correct about my intent. But the idea does not lead to problems. Rather, the idea is inherently nebulous. Once we have satisfied the minimum bar of modesty in dress, thought, and action, then we go about trying to see if we can help our sisters and brothers in their weakness.
"Oh, but that's not FAIR! It's THEIR problem, not MINE!"
Yes, true. Obviously. We all know this. But that is beside the point. Can you imagine if our Father or the Christ were to take this attitude with us? We would be forever lost. Should we follow Cain's insolent hatefulness in sarcastically asking, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Or should we see if we can help, despite their weakness?
"Well, there's nothing I can do! If some guy is such a pervert that the sight of female shins sends him into a tizzy, he's a lost cause!"
Possibly. But this is a variation of the previous attitude of "not my problem". It is that attitude that concerns me.
Should we tell our teenage daughters, "You must not wear that perfectly modest outfit, because you will tempt the boys!"? No, of course not. That is putting the onus where it does not belong.
Should we tell our teenage daughters, "That's a beautiful dress and makes you look great. But when you look great, the boys get all hot and bothered, so you should probably tone it down and try to look a little dumpier"? No, that's silly. While it's not as inappropriate as the previous example, it's dumb to tell a beautiful young woman to be less beautiful because it somehow "helps" the young men. The whole attitude is wrong, though not as much so as the previous example.
Should we tell  our teenage daughters, "Your shorts and blouse are perfectly modest, and you look great. I have found out that there is a certain person who has a weakness he's struggling against, and when he interacts with attractive young women in shorts, his thoughts tend to go down a path he doesn't like and wants to avoid. What would you think about wearing something else, like those nice capris?" You know, this seems reasonable to me. It doesn't put the onus of the anonymous young man's weakness on her. It doesn't make it her problem. But it does offer her the opportunity to do a favor for a brother in his weakness. I think that is perfectly appropriate.
Is my example strained? Yes, perhaps a little. Is it utterly unrealistic? I think it is not.
Previous generations have perhaps taught their daughters that they (the daughters) had responsibility over the impure thoughts of the young men of their time. They were told, implicitly or sometimes explicitly, that modesty in dress was to help the poor young men -- who after all were at the mercy of their libidos and could hardly be expected to remain chaste when so sorely tempted by a young woman's bare shoulder or (shudder) cleavage.
The solution to this is, of course, to put the onus where it belongs. To a first approximation, a young man's libido is the young man's responsibility, and no one else's.
What I hear being preached by many on this forum is an unwarranted extension of this philosophy. Remember the "to a first approximation" caveat above? Not only is a young man's libido his own responsibility, but no one else has any responsibility at all to help him.
When we teach this to our daughters, we are teaching them to be narrow, uncharitable, and selfish. That is my beef with this conversation. I'm all for putting the blame where it belongs and keeping the onus on the correct parties. But when I write something as seemingly obvious as I wrote -- that in some cases it might be worthy that a young woman go beyond the minimal demands of modesty and choose to make a small sacrifice to help out someone weaker and struggling -- and others take umbrage at it, that indicates to me that there is a problem. That might be a problem with reading comprehension, or it might be a problem with basic charity for our fellow man. Or maybe something else, though I don't know what that would be.

This much is certainly true. Generally speaking, we are not at fault for our brother's weaknesses. But it does not follow that therefore we have no responsibility to help him. Specifically, if immodesty in dress hurts a weak brother, I believe there is a moral imperative to quit being immodest.
But what if the brother gets all hot and bothered because you're wearing that nice flowered print dress? Surely that's just his problem and not yours, right? Well...yes, right. It is his problem and not yours. And you cannot go around taking everyone's problems on yourself. But in some certain situation, it might just be the kind thing to do to help him out. it may not be a moral obligation, exactly. But if you take seriously the idea that you are your brother's keeper, then you might well avoid the flowered print dress for his sake -- even though it's not immodest per se.
The ancient apostle Paul exhibited this attitude when talking about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols: It may not be immoral to eat such food, but if it offends a brother, he will refuse to eat that meat while the world stands. Perhaps it would behoove us to take Paul's example and adopt such an attitude, where reasonable.