eddified
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by eddified
-
-
I hope no one gets the wrong impression: I hate porn and wish the world would be rid of it. I really hate how it uses and abuses daughters of God. It is very, very evil. It is a plague. Literally a spiritual plague. Exposure to it leads many men to get the wrong ideas about how to treat women and wrong ideas about sex. It ruins marriages. No doubt about this. I've seen it in my extended family. If you view it, even just "occasionally", you should speak with your bishop. And just STOP! It is a vile and repulsive habit.
-
I'll say it again since I think it bears repeating, for those who passed over my longer post above simply because it was long:
Elder Oaks said this in a talk about overcoming pornography:
"In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make"
Hear that? "a VERY IMPORTANT distinction to make". I encourage you to learn why by reading the full talk: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng
-
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
"A person who represents themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer."-Old proverb.
Seriously, if you want Bob the plumber to defend you for capital murder, you can talk about all that money you saved on the way to the gas chamber.Sure. There are risks. I just hate to see there being only one right answer to a question. Is it correct to suggest using an attorney for immigration issues? Yes. Is it correct to suggest you can do it on your own? Yes. Many people do it on their own, and the risks maybe aren't as high as defending yourself in court. Whether to use an attorney for immigration issues is a value judgement. If you value your time, and the help of the attorney, more than the $200-$500, that's your value judgement to make. If you value your $200-$500 more than being shielded from the risks, and more than the time you would spend researching it yourself, that's your value judgement to make, and I wouldn't be telling you that you are wrong to make it.
If I'm a young, healthy 25-year old taken to court on a murder case, you bet your britches a lawyer is worth it. If I'm 70 years old and my poor health leads to a poor quality of life so I'm suffering big time, my outlook on life will be much different. In this case, my value judgement might be that 20 years in prison, or death by electric chair, isn't much worse than the 5 years I've already spent, lonely, in the nursing home. So maybe I'd try my hand at doing it myself. (But as I understand it U.S. law doesn't allow passing debts to your heirs, so getting into debt big time on a lawyer so late in life might not be a big deal.... but in countries where you can inherit debt, I may value the money savings of representing myself in court much more than having the lawyer -- don't want to hand all this debt down to my heirs.)
-
@a mustard seed I can understand your perspective on this issue, knowing what I know about your mother (from your forum posts). I can see your mother's behavior really hurts you and your siblings. That's a regrettable situation. It would be nice if she would seek help for her alcoholism etc.
-
2 hours ago, a mustard seed said:
1. One is not better than the other. Viewing it at all whether you "choose" to every once in a while or whether you feel you have to sounds like a problem that has a similar answer: it needs to stop. Period. 2. Admitting "addict" status is not a "give up" standard. That doesn't make sense. Admitting a lack of control over one's life in regards to behaviors or use of anything really, is an acknowledgement of a need to change. If they mentally call themselves an addict and see it as a reason not to change, then I'd hazard a guess that the label possibly fits because they're putting a bit more effort than is necessary in rationalizing "I don't have to change this." Because most people who can even admit they are addicts, do so with the mindset of "therefore I need help/I cannot do this on my own" right after it. I know a few addicts in my life and none of them call themselves addicts because they are stuck in pride and not thinking they need to change. I think getting someone to admit that this problem is 1. serious and 2. could very easily be something out of their control has more good than bad consequences, because if change is on their minds and a desire to be closer to Christ, then even if they view pornography once a month, they will be filled with the desire to stop this, even if the label "addict" in the end does not exactly fit them. The point is to get these youth to the bishop's office before it ruins their lives, because even casual use will. Viewing pornography no matter if you do it a lot or a little will color a person's view of themselves, other people, and their relationships and thoughts about intimacy all in ways that make it impossible to find that connection we're suppose to have when we're with our spouse. ALL pornography viewing will do that.
Here are a few quotes I pulled from "Recovering From the Trap of Pornography", by Elder Oaks, quorum of the twelve apostles. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng
QuoteIt is helpful to focus on four different levels of involvement with pornography: (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction).
(emphasis added by me), and:
QuoteOnce we recognize these different levels, we also recognize that not everyone who uses pornography willfully is addicted to it. In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted. That is a very important distinction to make—not just for the parents, spouses, and leaders who desire to help but also for those who struggle with this problem. Here is why.
First, the deeper the level of involvement one engages in—from inadvertent exposure, to occasional or repeated intentional use, to intensive use, to compulsive (addictive) use—the more difficult it is to recover. If behavior is incorrectly classified as an addiction, the user may think he or she has lost agency and the capacity to overcome the problem. This can weaken resolve to recover and repent. On the other hand, having a clearer understanding of the depth of a problem—that it may not be as ingrained or extreme as feared—can give hope and an increased capacity to exercise agency to discontinue and repent.
Second, as with any sinful behavior, willful use of pornography drives away the Holy Ghost. Some who have experienced this will feel prompted to repent. Others, however, may feel embarrassed and seek to hide their guilt through deceit. They may also begin to feel shame, which can lead to self-loathing. If this happens, users may begin to believe one of Satan’s greatest lies: that what they have done or continue to do makes them a bad person, unworthy of the Savior’s grace and incapable of repentance. That is simply not true. We are never too far out of reach from the Savior and His Atonement.
Finally, it is important not to label even intensive or habitual use of pornography as an addiction because that does not accurately describe the circumstances or the full nature of the required repentance and recovery. Having a better understanding of where a person is in the process will also allow a better understanding of what action is necessary to recover.
(emphasis added by me).
If the label "addict" helps someone seek help, that's a good thing. If someone realizes they are *not* an addict, and therefore feel EMPOWERED such that they feel they *DO* have the ability to to just stop it, ... if that helps them, then that is a good thing. I fell into both categories at different points in my life. At this point I do not consider myself an addict. It helps me to realize it is fully within my control. - And I have made amazing progress.
-
9 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:
The problem with video games, or TV, movies, sports, or any entertainment is that they can and do become distractions from learning about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anything, including video games, that causes this distraction is bad. We are taught to hunger and thirst after the Gospel; entertainment can and does distract from this. It really depends on your mindset when indulging in entertainment.
Personally, I think video games are an absolute, mindless waste of time. You really don't learn much of anything from them. Then again, so are most TV programs, sports, and movies.
Yup, one could consider TV and card games a mindless waste of time too. The occasional wholesome nature TV show like Planet Earth ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(TV_series) ) can be a good use of time, but most TV shows are not worth my time spent watching them. Including BYU TV's Granite Flat's... I watched every episode and I'm wishing I hadn't, it was a waste of time. Thanks everybody, I will take a long hard look at the time I spend on video games (even though it's like 5 hours a month) and think about taking that down to just 1 (an hour spent playing them with my wife *only*. If that's my restriction then very little will I play indeed.)
11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:Perhaps they have not seen enough real combat then...Then maybe they have and they just cant get enough. I can tell you in my short Iraq tour in my unit we had 1 KIA and 30% WIA (48 wounded).. Freaking mess and it wasnt funny. We were on the winning side of it and thats the result of 166 IED/ Small Arms and coordinated attacks / enemy encounters on our elements, several vehicles totally destroyed. I know the numbers cuz it was my job to keep them for our unit. An additional duty of sorts. This was leading up to and during the surge in late '06 thru 2007.
Made police work look like a joke and I have seen some serious action as a cop. Been involved in a few shootings , witnessed many more, seen a few people blow their heads off in front of me etc. I was desensitized with real life before Iraq and Iraq was an eye opener. I dont know where you work, but Phx area is def a gamer's paradise for the real thing.
Anyway- just my two cents (and thats all its worth). Its my opinion people only get off on killing when there is no consequence. We are raising a generation of people who think its a game. I'd go do it all over again because there are still terrorists out there who need to be killed esp if it meant I could take the place of one of my kids, but the thought of it makes me want to throw up. Thats why these games suck...the combat ones and the others for other reasons. These kids have better things they should be doing.I used to enjoy violent games but I've sworn them off. I agree everyone should probably stay away from games involving killing (rated "T" or above). I really don't think the Spirit is around when I play those types of games. -
If you had Direct help from @anatess2's Family then maybe you could do that -- it sounds like they know what they're doing. But seeing as how you can't actually get direct help from her family easily ( she's just a random stranger on the Internet to you as far as I know ) that may not be the way to go.
-
On 8/1/2017 at 2:40 PM, MormonGator said:
I'm with you @omegaseamaster75
No one is forcing you to hire a lawyer, use a realtor when you buy a home, or get a medical doctor to preform surgery on your grandmother. Sure, it might work for you and I seriously hope it does, but when it doesn't you have no one to blame but yourself.
People do things on their own all the time. It's actually normal. Don't want to hire a professional to teach you to swim? Great! Want to renovate your bathroom on your own? Do it! Yes there are risks. Life is risky! Get over it.
Want to hire a professional for X? I'm all for that too. It sure is easier.
Edit: more thoughts:
People can do things on their own while still mitigating risks. It's called doing your homework. Some go all in without researching it, and get into big trouble. Others do their homework and get into big trouble, too. Yet others hire the professional and still get into trouble. It's life. If you want to do it yourself, then do it! It's even possible to be your own lawyer in court. I wouldn't recommend it but the law is all laid out for anyone to read : if you've time on your hands and tons of patience you can defend yourself in court too. I wouldn't recommend it but I've heard of it being done successfully.
In many activities if you do your homework then you can make your risk exposure very very small.
-
6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Those are great games.
I'd add:
Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance I and II for GC-Xbox
Mario Kart on any system
X-Men Legends GC-Xbox
Goldeneye on N64Golden eye and Mario kart -- such classics!! They should both be in "eddified's video game hall of fame"
-
Hey @MormonGator did you play NBA Jam back in the day? I recently started teaching my boys how to play and it's a riot.
-
14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
My favorite types of games: College sports games (surprise!), RPG, and turn based strategy.
Caution: thread jack ahead. This is no longer about why video games are evil. It's now about what your favorite evil video games are.
My faves are often local multiplayer games, but not limited to them.
- PS3 Bomberman Ultra - Great party game.
- PS2 Dance Dance Revolution - get your exercise in!
- Nintendo 64 - Super Smash Brothers. 4-player brawl !
- Nintendo 64 - New Tetris - give garbage lines to your opponents!
- PS3 - Little Big Planet - 4 - player platformer
-
-
There is a danger, a harm, with telling the YSA ward that they probably have a pornography addiction, when it's not an addiction. Yes it's absolutely a sin, and must be avoided like the plague. And you should speak with the bishop if you viewed it. But the moment someone decides that they are "addicted", it can have a negative impact on their ability to stop. As stated by others above, the label "addict" brings to mind ideas like they "can't" stop.... even though they really can. They still have agency. They still have some control over their lives. If they really are out of control then that is a different matter. But for those who view it "casually"... perhaps it's better to avoid the label of "addict".
Its entirely possible that that young man was trying to rationalize. Perhaps he has the wrong idea about the whole "addict-vs-non-addict" idea.
-
20 minutes ago, zil said:
<voice style="overly polite, robotic, pre-recorded female">Googling, please hold</voice>
...pause...
<voice style="overly polite, robotic, pre-recorded female">Reference found. I'm sorry, snarky, literalist tendencies are inherent in this entity and cannot be disabled. Have a nice day.</voice>
Wait, what phone number did you use to get ahold of Google?!
-
51 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:
I'm curious if any dedicated gamers here could tally their play time for a month and compare that with the time spent working on their unachieved goals??? I really am curious how much time one spends doing one vs the other. It may say a lot about how much they value achieving the goal.
Sure it is unscientific, but would be interesting.
I agree with you to an extent. Again my card playing analogy comes up: if anyone describes themself as a "dedicated card player" I would ask they take a long hard look at their dedication to what I would term to be an idle pursuit. Same for video games. I too believe lots of time is wasted on them.
Edit: or a dedicated tv watcher.
-
-
I agree that video game playing can be idle -- in the same way as playing cards can be. Previous presidents of the church have decried all types of card games (I think), saying they are idle.
That said, I don't see any harm in playing a fun, wholesome party game with other people. This is what I love to do - play multi-player video games with my children and wife and brother in law (or what have you). I personally don't play video games often. But I admit they can hold a power over some people. They can be very addictive. I have no problem with someone that has a goal to never play video games -- for whatever reason, whether it be they believe video games are idle, or they used to be addicted to them and need to stay away, or any other reason whatsoever.
A fun party game with the kids is 4-player Tetris. My wife plays too.
-
On 7/31/2017 at 7:38 PM, zil said:
I hope you've leveled up, and have plenty of weapons in your stockpile, and lots of extra lives, because you've just started a war. (And your enemies will now laugh at my attempt to use their terminology.)
Are there previous threads about video games? I haven't seen them. (Haven't looked, either.)
-
Relevant link:
QuoteThings have gotten to a point where casual low-level male-bashing is a constant white noise in the hip progressive online media. Take a recent piece on Broadly, the women’s section of Vice, titled, “Men Are Creepy, New Study Confirms” — promoted with a Vice Facebook post that said: “Are you a man? You’re probably a creep.” The actual study found something very different: that both men and women overwhelmingly think someone described as “creepy” is more likely to be male. If a study had found that a negative trait was widely associated with women (or gays or Muslims), surely this would have been reported as deplorable stereotyping, not confirmation of reality.
Meanwhile, men can get raked over the (virtual) coals for voicing even the mildest unpopular opinion on something feminism-related. ...
-
5 minutes ago, Godless said:
The fact that it's illegal doesn't stop it from happening at alarming rates. And the bigger problem is enforcement of the law and sentencing of criminals. You have collegiate and professional athletes who get away with horrific sexual crimes because they're talented athletes. A BYU-I student was recently convicted of voyeurism and didn't have to register as a sex offender because it was his first offense. Our justice system is soft on sexual assault far too often. That's why feminists make such a big fuss over rape culture. Our culture itself is problematic, but the "justice" system makes it so much worse.
Agree 100%. Our society is abundant with dangers for women. It's good that a significant number of men are starting to see that, and we largely have feminism to thank for it.
The day that a man's bodily autonomy is affected by a pregnancy, I will gladly support this. As it is, I'm certainly not against the father having some input, but ultimately the decision is the mother's, because it's her body that is carrying the infant. Is it fair? No. But it's one area where a woman should have the greater right for simple biological reasons.
Most feminists that I know (and I know a LOT of feminists) are plenty vocal about these issues, and the child custody issue seems to be gaining traction as well. Interesting that I cross paths with so many feminists, but only very rarely encounter one of those man-haters that are brought up so often in these discussions. They exist, sure, but you would think that I would see more of them given the company I tend to keep, if the generalizations brought up here are to be believed.
MRA sounds to me a lot like the folks who respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter". Our society has come a long way in regard to gender equality and women's rights, but there are still some hurdles to overcome. Our society is still a man's world in many ways. Decreasingly so, but it's still a fact that men have the most advantages in our culture. So excuse me if I find it difficult to view my gender as oppressed.
What the Stanford swimmer Brock Turner got away with was absolutely disgusting. I'm glad a big deal was made out of that.
It's good that you pointed out most feminists aren't man-haters. But the way the media portrays it.... well, let's just say the media thrive on sensationalism. And most people here who dislike feminism are responding to the media's version of feminism, I would guess.
I think your assertion that "we largely have feminism to thank for it" is just unfounded assumption. @anatess2 has showed some indications that that might not be true.
-
From the rebuttal article:
QuoteThe first several comments consisted of a group of people (mostly men) discussing what they thought of as feminism, which they imagined as a prideful group of women who want to take away what men have and keep it for themselves.
Let's not discredit someone because of their gender. Knowing someone's gender can help you interpret their views, but let's be careful not to discredit someone's views simply because of their gender--that's sexism.
-
@Anddenex, @anatess2, could it be that in a situation such as this (where your spouse is presenting themselves to the public as the opposite sex, and dressing up as the opposite sex, etc), that there isn't only one right option? Could there be more than one right option? The Lord lets us choose. Jesus gave the 12 Nephite disciples a choice about death and 3 of them chose something different. Not wrong, not right... just different. Could it be that @Anddenex's view is not wrong, just different? Staying with a spouse no matter what is commendable. But clearly the Lord allows divorce under extreme cases, with no condemnation (as far as I can tell). Might these just be different choices, with one not being greater than the other?
-
1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:
Not to side track, but you don't believe this do you?
What is your reasoning for asking this question? I don't understand what your issue is with @priesthoodpower's statement about the prophet.
-
Next time you think your marriage is bad...
in Current Events
Posted
Snopes says the story is fake:
http://www.snopes.com/texas-man-prostitute-wife/