eddified
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by eddified
-
-
1 hour ago, mirkwood said:
Quick clarification. No it hasn't.
Derail over.
I find posts made merely to express disagreement with someone pretty unhelpful and basically, contentious. <Ahem>. I would suggest giving reasons for the disagreement, thus making the post worth reading. As it is, it's not worth reading.
The perception among some portion of the members is that food storage counsel has softened. I would say it has been clarified in such a way as to make it seem, to those not making a careful study of the teachings, as if they had been softened (that's why I used the word "supposedly" in my other comment). See:
https://askgramps.org/how-much-emergency-preparedness-is-enough/
-
9 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:
On the topic of why we keep commandments:
My first impression when confronted with the idea of "why" we have any commandment is first and foremost because God has said so. Other "reasons" beyond that are not likely, in my opinion at the moment, any more or less important than others.
I love this. I'm very sympathetic to this line of reasoning.
- SpiritDragon and Anddenex
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Anddenex said:
Modesty has nothing to do with the print, hue, or pattern of any dress or skirt, so I am really puzzled by the connection.
Well, I can think of some designs that are immodest. For example, I've seen lots of designs that outrageously flaunt the female chest, and basically call attention to the breasts in a very immodest way. I'm not talking about size or shape of the chest, I'm talking about thinks like words saying "Why don't you look at my face?" right across the chest, or other such nonsense. Then there is the large, oversized shirt which has a cartoonish curvaceous torso wearing a bikini printed on it. ..basically a funny shirt when juxtaposed with the actual figure of a large person wearing it.
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Now, this stuff is a completely different story. It has nothing to do with softening of tone for the sake of gentle persuasion. This is about the Samuel Principle. It is no different than Moses allowing divorces.
What is the Samuel principle?
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I feel quite confident that having a year's supply of food was never an eternal truth.
Um ok. I didn't say it was. You're missing the point.
-
From the Church's website:
https://www.lds.org/topics/modesty?lang=eng
QuoteOur clothing ... sends messages about us, and it influences the way we and others act.
QuoteRevealing and sexually suggestive clothing, which includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, and shirts that do not cover the stomach, can stimulate desires and actions that violate the Lord's law of chastity.
QuoteLike our dress and grooming, our language and behavior are expressions of our character. Our words and actions can have a profound influence on us and on others. We should express ourselves through clean, positive, uplifting language and in actions that bring happiness to those around us.
In addition, the Bible teaches us in Matthew 15:11:
QuoteI personally think this can be related to language. Filthy language coming out of a man's mouth "defileth a man".... which I would say reflects on an individual's self-respect. In like manner, as language is an expression of one's character and state of mindfulness, so too is one's manner of dress. So in my opinion, the Matthew 15:11 scripture also applies to what we wear. And similarly, what we wear does in fact say something about our self-respect.
-
6 hours ago, anatess2 said:
I chalk it up to an age before "Gender Studies". You know, that age when we were still free to point out the obvious differences between male and female. You know... that men are generally visually aroused while women are generally emotionally aroused? That.
In today's day and age it became so... pooh pooh'd to point out that fact that a Church teaching that alludes to this basic differences in males and females becomes ohhh sooo bad!
It is a statistical FACT. Women display their cleavage - big or small, black or white, fat or skinny, rich or poor - because men are attracted to the physical female. It's a biological natural man response. A man displaying his body attributes don't attract women in the same manner. A woman is not attracted to a man's abs because it's a part of the male body. Women are attracted to a man's abs because of it's implication of strength. So you don't hear too much of this - help women bridle their loins by keeping your abs covered as much.
Ah, this is refreshing. Saying it like it is. Preach!
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:I really don't understand the complaint about modesty being for other. Why should that be a problem for anyone? Should we not relish the ability to help those who are weak? Shouldn't it be part of who we desire to be to bear one another's burdens -- even if those burdens are a weakness for exposed flesh? Wouldn't part of bearing that burden be ensuring that we don't bear flesh in front of said individuals(s)? What does the fact that they are accountable for their choices and actions have to do with our choices to either support and help or give the virtual bird to someone who is so struggling? Are we our brother's keepers or not?
Bingo. The hyper-individualism taught by modern culture doesn't mix so well with teachings of "love each other and be mindful of their weaknesses", does it?
1 hour ago, Vort said: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.
Yes, my ultra-strict uncle judges me when I wear a button-up shirt of the wrong color (i.e. not white) to church. As someone who doesn't sit on the stand, nor serve the sacrament, I don't really think it should matter what color of shirt I wear. That said, I now choose to only wear white shirts to church so as not to offend/distract others sitting in sacrament meeting. It's not just about me, it's also about who will be seeing me and what I'm wearing.
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:Eh, burkas would look weird on the beach. In particular with the beaches that I go to.
In all seriousness, perhaps you'd be surprised how many people think "modest clothing" (by church standards) "looks weird at venue X". Sometimes we don't like what the church teaches - in those cases it's up to us to do careful introspection about submitting our will to God's.
-
2 hours ago, JoCa said:
I'll give a quick example, If I'm an alcoholic, I don't go to Church tell everyone hey guys "I'm an alcoholic!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't drink. I might say (in a private setting or at special moments) "at times in past I've had problems with alcohol, but through Christ, I've been able to overcome them".
But today in the Church openly homosexual members say "I'm homosexual!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't break the LoC.
But, you can tell everyone "I'm an alcoholic", and still remain a valid temple recommend holder. And the ward members should still keep you in fellowship. But yes, I do acknowledge that if you are sinful, you should normally be ashamed of the sin. Wanting to shout from the rooftops that you are an alcoholic (or homosexual) indicates a problem on your part, not the church's.
I do believe the church has always had to change it's methods to suit the audience. "Build up a year's supply of food storage" has supposedly changed to just a few months. They teach what we're willing to hear. The tone of the messages of the church says something about the audience - it doesn't indicate a waffling on eternal truths.
-
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Okay, you need to answer this question too.
DEFINE LOVE.
In concrete terms.
Sorry I just meant that she honestly believes she does not love her husband, by her definition. I don't think we can just chalk it up to ppd.
-
@NightSG @Vort As this is an advice forum, and seeing as how we have just a few paragraphs of material to work from, assumptions must be made. I personally try to assume the best in people. But at the same time we should be realistic. If we apply these rules to this case, I think we do come up with a picture of a woman that does not love her husband -- or at least, doesn't think she does. It is entirely possible that @mormondad doesn't realize there are other things at work here: perhaps his wife is using him and he doesn't realize it. Perhaps his wife is rather cold-hearted and wouldn't love her husband under any circumstances. Perhaps his wife has mental or emotional issues that are preventing her from loving fully. Perhaps she just wants to leech off a man as @Dillon suggests. Who knows? There are pessimistic assumptions that could be made. There are also optimistic assumptions that could be made. I tend to try to make more optimistic assumptions, hence my guess that maybe OP's wife just doesn't realize she loves him, and may in the future.
Christ did teach long suffering and patience. That's why I take this angle in this situation. Without any other evidence of abuse (though there may be that, we just haven't seen evidence of that yet), I personally won't start recommending the OP get a lawyer (etc).
As for whether we can attribute the "never loved you" statement to ppd only.. I think we can't. The OP made it clear that she has never loved him. I say take her at her word.
-
9 hours ago, SilentOne said:
I had quite a bit of coursework relating to divorce in college and women are, or at least were ~10 years ago, more likely to ask for a divorce. Who was most responsible for causing the initial marital problems was not known.
If we consider the men who want more sexual partners and want to stay married, but are unrepentant in their adultery, then yes it makes sense that the women are the ones asking for divorce. Same for cases of physical abuse. I guess it seems likely that whoever is causing the problems is usually less likely to be the one asking for the divorce. Just guessing here....
- Sunday21 and my two cents
-
2
-
My advice to the OP ( @mormondad ):
Have you seen the film "Fiddler on the Roof"? There is this song-- Tevya is singing to his wife "Do you love me?" She keeps answering back about everything she does for him, yet as far as I recall she never says yes. I think the viewer is led to believe that Tevya's wife does love him, she just doesn't like to say it.
I guess my point is that even in arranged marriages, couples often learn to love each other. Don't give up. Love her. Love is an action (another lesson from that song in "Fiddler on the Roof"). Do it. And have hope that she will learn to love you.
-
It sounds to me like @Dillon has met quite a few of the women with ill motives. Has he perhaps dated a few of them and gotten burned a few times?
-
4 hours ago, Dillon said:
it is known that women today are the lead instigators in divorce,
Again, not buying it. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, I've just never beard this. Where did you hear this? My anecdotal experience in my family tells me it's usually the men who cause the marital problems leading to divorce.
-
8 hours ago, Dillon said:
Most women dont love they use.
I don't buy this. What is your definition of "most"?
-
Sorry didn't read all of the posts. Is Brother V by any chance the ward mission leader?
-
Well, there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates
A couple of direct quotes from the article:
QuoteCalibration is needed because the atmospheric 14C/12C ratio, which is a key element in calculating radiocarbon ages, has not been constant historically.
This second one is from a graph image; note that separate calibration curves are needed per hemisphere:
QuoteThe Northern hemisphere curve from INTCAL13. As of 2014 this is the most recent version of the standard calibration curve. There are separate graphs for the southern hemisphere and for calibration of marine data.
-
For the record I don't believe in intelligent extra-terrestrials visiting earth. I'm convinced it would never happen, but if it did, they'd be humans that look like us, from another of God's planets (I'm not making a statement asserting that there are [or are not] other humans living on other planets.)
-
19 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:
.
Haha! You just said it. That's the joke though, right?
-
2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:
For a second, you had me worried!
Not me. @Vort can handle even the toughest extra-terrestrials.
-
5 minutes ago, Vort said:
Since you've revealed that you are in reality a bus driver, I'll go with #2. #1 is just so good I'm hoping it's true.
Yes. My wife and I hooked my cousin and my wife's sister up on a blind date and they were married within 2-3 months. As a consequence, I see my cousin at all of my wife's family functions, and at most of my family functions (my mother's side of the family, he's a cousin through my mother).
The yo-yo thing is true, but it's not about me. It's my co-worker that does that. http://www.theyoyomuseum.com/
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
Sorry, Doc. Snig is correct. I have always wanted to get involved in model rocketry, but I have never (yet) done so.
Sorry, ed. anatess and (again) Snig are right. My smart-alek boys decided to be funny. One of our missionaries here is Korean, and it was...interesting...to watch his reaction as he beheld on our wall a framed portrait of Kim Jong-un. (Not sure why they put Trump up there. It's not like there's a shortage of despots they could have used instead.)
For the record, it was my two oldest, and one of them replaced both his high school portrait and his baby portrait.
OK let's hear the alien story. Are you talking about this definition of alien ? "belonging to a foreign country or nation" or the "extraterrestrial" variety?
-
-
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
How many oldest sons do you have?
Kim has to be the truth. Because, that's just funny. and Putin. and Trump. That's just something these Gen Z guys would do.
I'm guessing the opposite. I'm guessing the Kim Jong-un, Putin and Trump pics are the lies.
Baptism for same sex couples?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by eddified
I apologize, I did come out swinging, so to speak. It was petty of me to take such issue with a simple disagreement, and I'm sorry.
That said, it really seems you misunderstood me. My original post (the one you disagreed with) was left unchanged (I never once edited it after you posted your disagreement), and in it, I said, "supposedly". In other words, there is wiggle room there. So, I could be wrong, but it sure seemed you were disagreeing with something I didn't actually say. But without you saying anything on the matter, it's pretty hard to actually tell where you stand. If you don't want to hash it out, I understand... we all usually have better things to do than argue with strangers.
For the record, I did not surreptitiously change my opinion on the matter, I merely didn't want to go into all of that when I was only using it to make a point (point was, the church's message on food storage has changed [or clarified, you might say] -- changed slightly, while many perceiving the change as being larger than it actually is - but still, the message changed a little bit). So I'm unsure what your point is by saying I edited my post. Oh well, have a good Sunday evening.