The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
I think most young people don’t go to priests and bishops for mental health counseling because they (clerics) lack formal mental health training. This isn’t me being snarky, but I’m not asking a plumber to represent me in court for armed robbery.
Yeah, I think that's common. And I believe it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about what I mentioned to @mikbone, that mental health is as much spiritual as it is physical (and maybe more so).
That being said...I don't talk to my bishop about my mental health. I talk to him about my spiritual health. A bishop is, indeed, unqualified to be counseling me on my physical brain health. Would someone go to the bishop for a diagnosis and treatment for being physically ill? The idea's ridiculous. And a bishop's response to someone doing that should be, "Go see a doctor."
So I think it's interesting. I certainly don't believe anyone who has a physical (chemical or otherwise) issue causing mental health issues should be discussing that with their bishop for medical advice. But I believe they should be discussing it with their bishop as it relates to the spiritual (and, certainly, so the bishop understands them better). That is no different that the fact that I'd tell my bishop if I had cancer. It wouldn't be for medical counsel. But I'd want the ward support and feel the bishop ought to be aware of the trials of his flock.
25 minutes ago, LDSGator said:Come to think of it I think that’s the reason a lot of old people are afraid of mental health counseling. They might feel it undermines the authority of the church?
I agree on this too.
That being said, I tend to believe that the larger reason people in the church don't like mental health counseling is because they're smart enough to realize that mental health counseling is nothing but snake oil!
On a serious note -- what I personally believe (and can only assume others in the church see it likewise): The reason I don't have any interest in mental health counseling is because the gospel of Christ is sufficient. I don't believe my bishop has any specific training on mental health. But the gospel, itself, encompasses all that anyone needs for their mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. That won't cover the physical. If a person needs drugs, they need drugs. The gospel can't provide those drugs. That's the medical side of the matter. The rest...the gospel is sufficient. That's my take. It's not relative to undermining anything. It's just not needful. A waste of time and money -- and potentially harmful when the "wisdom of man" creeps in.
But...I have to admit, when I really hold that view up against some of my others it doesn't always stack up. For example, if one were to say the Word of Wisdom is sufficient, hence I need to other diet plan or training... Well I'd consider that foolishness. So my thinking on mental health isn't necessarily consistent... That being said...there are an awful lot of snake oil diet/fitness plans out there too. And I've been snowballed by many of them. When push comes to shove, diet and exercise is simple and takes no elaborate plan beyond discipline and hard work...two principles easily covered by the gospel. So maybe the gospel is sufficient after all?
-
8 hours ago, mikbone said:
The authors then go on a 2 page explanation as to why the study might be flawed, and why diagnostic scopes should still be performed…
Ah man. I was hoping I'd found the magic source that allowed me to justify never getting a colonoscopy!
-
8 hours ago, mikbone said:
Hopefully in the near future we will better understand mental illness and can develop treatments that can restore the brain to a normal status.
I doubt we will reach this state. The reason being: I think there's something metaphysical (a.k.a. spiritual) about how the brain works that physical science can't uncover. Just my view. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of physically related things that cannot be improved. But a completely physical approach to a "normal status" while not addressing the spiritual? I don't think that will work out.
-
23 minutes ago, Traveler said:
I have wondered a great deal concerning mental illness.
I have too. And although not about therapy, which I tend to think of as a big con, I kind of see both sides of the debate when it comes to medication. I think, on the one hand, that the fact that everyone's kids being home from school for the "pandemic" (yes, I put that in quotes
) led to Adderall shortages is shameful. On the flip side, I just got a prescription for A.D.D. medication myself (not that I can get any at the current time), my brother is on A.D.D. medication too. And my wife, father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother, sister, etc. are all on medication of some sort or another for depression. And the medicine makes a big difference in all of our lives. So I'm just not sure what to think about it.
Once as an adult my brother joked with me as we were discussing this matter, saying, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"
And boy howdy do I still hold that to be true. My A.D.D. didn't make me be bad. I was just bad sometime. Because kids are bad sometimes. So stop putting "bad" kids on Speed to turn them into robots! Arggh! I really hate it. Especially when a lot of these kids are "bad" because they have terrible, impatient, inattentive parents and are put into an effectual prison-factory every day called school. I wasn't on medication as a kid because no one even knew that A.D.D. was a thing. I'm so grateful for that.
I'm not a fan of putting kids on medicine. I'm so grateful my childhood wasn't medicated away.
But with adults, however... well I don't see how the use of a crutch when you have a missing leg is a problem. There has to be balance and wisdom in that thinking though, especially when it comes to mental things. And I can't say I fully understand the wisdom and balance. But with some people it's obvious. Many of those I listed above who are on depression medication...when they are off it....you know it! And it's not good.
That being said, are there theoretically alternatives? Sure. I think people suffered a lot less from depression when they were too tired to think about it from all the hard work they had to do all day just to survive in ye olden days (I say think because who knows for sure). Plowing in the fields all day is a good remedy for a lot of mental issues, methinks. But... I'm not going to recommend my wife take up butter churning, sew (and then wash) all the clothes by hand, etc., etc., to deal with the depression issues she has. Life is what it is. We have it easy. And that leads to problems for a lot of people. Whatever the cause, people have mental broken legs and need crutches.
But I just don't know. I really don't. I don't know what I'm talking about. I understand A.D.D. brain. (On a side note, my doctor told me that if it wasn't for the lack of severe depression after the manic, what I described to her sounded like Bi-Polar (to be fair...mild Bi-Polar..but still...)). But I don't understand depression. I still feel like the "just learn have a positive mental attitude" response is appropriate. But I've been told, firmly, that such an answer is wrong.
And because I have my own weird mental things...I can accept that others do despite my "just get over it" tendencies*.
*Which is sort of my natural response to a lot of my own issues. I suppress that response in favor of what I believe is the wiser course. But maybe I'm wrong.
Like I said.... I just don't know.
On a side note: I have A.D.D. but very little in the way of A.D.H.D. The hyper part wasn't really a thing for me, for the most part. A bit...but no more than a typical kid. But the daydreaming and lack of attention and bedwetting and all that....that I had down in spades.
Now...to relate that back to the temple changes somehow................................................................................................um....
- Vort and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Vort said:
The Music Man is thoroughly telestial in pretty much every way
A con man repenting of his ways because he finds real love? A town forgiving him because of the good he actually brought? That doesn't sound telestial to me.
FWIW, (and, once again, it depends on what one means by "elevated", though I took @LDSGator's meaning as "popular" or "generally viewed as worthy of praise"), in my opinion The Music Man is a phenomenal piece of high art living in the rather low brow world where musical theater often lives. And it manages to do it without the "high art" uppity trappings of shows like Les Miz.
I would argue that The Music Man was both elevated and good.
-
27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
CDs
Or..... you have heard of Spotify, right?
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
@The Folk Prophet if I’ve already asked this I apologize, but after a quick search I couldn’t find the answer.
Do you have any guilty pleasure musicals you enjoy? Some that may not be “elevated” or even good, but you enjoy them anyway?
this goes for everyone of course.
Sure...maybe. It depends, I guess, on what one considers "elevated" or "good".
But certainly Martin Guerre falls into that category. If you go to movie musicals then The Happiest Millionaire fits.
There are others that, I believe, are elevated but not good that I still quite enjoy (as do many others, which is why they're elevated), such as Hello Dolly.
And then there are those that are elevated but not good that I don't care for, such as Carousel. Actually there are probably a host of these.
And then there are those that are elevated but only sort of good but elevated as if they're "the best" that I think are...fine. Such as Singing In the Rain.
-
35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
that's not what I said
I'm not trying to say, "you did TOO say that" with the following. I accept that I may have misunderstood.
But you had said, "In the early 1970's I was born into a nation, a culture, and a church, that did not believe it was possible for a husband to sexually abuse his wife." I can see the nation and culture thing. And I can see it as more prevalent in the church. So I accept the "cultural change" point. What I don't accept is the phrasing that it was the church at large that thought that way, or that it was common for most members of the church to believe that.
I disbelieve that, generally, moderately faithful, honorable, trying-to-be-like-Christ, members of the church believed it was impossible to sexually abuse one's wife, whether they thought about it in explicit terms of "sexual abuse" or "rape" or not.
The world once believed it was the husband's right to kill his wife if he so wished.
The gospel of Christ has always taught a higher way.
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:I challenge you to find anything said from any pulpit, CoJC or others, before 1989 on the subject of spouse sexual abuse.
You can set it up this way where it has to be, specifically addressing "spouse sexual abuse" with that exact phrase and, sure. But if you are addressing the idea of being abusive to one's wife then it's pretty easy.
For one example, Joseph F. Smith taught:
"The husband should treat his wife with the utmost courtesy and respect. The husband should never insult her; he should never speak slightly of her, but should always hold her in the highest esteem in the home...
"I can not understand how a man can be unkind to any woman, much less to the wife of his bosom, and the mother of his children, and I am told that there are those who are absolutely brutal, but they are unworthy the name of men."
"My brethren, can you mistreat your wives, the mothers of your children? Can you help treating them with love and kindness? Can you help trying to make their lives as comfortable and happy as possible, lightening their burdens to the utmost of your ability, making life pleasant for them and for their children in their homes? How can you help it? How can any one help feeling an intense interest in the mother of his children, and also in his children? If we possess the Spirit of God, we can not do otherwise. It is only when men depart from the right spirit, when they digress from their duty, that they will neglect or dishonor any soul that is committed to their care. They are bound to honor their wives and children."
It's pretty hard to read into such comments a big, UNLESS....... "if she's not in the mood for sex, feel free to force yourself on her anyway!" And no right-thinking, decent, faithful man would ever believe so.
- Vort, Just_A_Guy and Traveler
-
2
-
1
-
So just in case anyone missed it, Elder Oaks's statement:
"Some of our members have expressed concerns that the new national Respect for Marriage law is in conflict with the Church’s teachings against same-sex marriage. We see a need to clarify the Church’s position on that new law.
At the time the national Respect for Marriage Act was adopted, the Church publicly reaffirmed our Church doctrine approving only marriage between one man and one woman.
Marriage bills previously proposed in the Congress made no attempt to protect religious freedom. The Church came out in favor of amendments that added religious freedom protections to the proposed Respect for Marriage Act. The amended bill was signed into law, but its overall effect was misunderstood because many news stories focused on only the part of the act that affirmed same-sex marriage.
The Respect for Marriage Act did restate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that added little because that law was already in effect under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision. The focus of the Church’s efforts was not on same-sex marriage, but on ensuring the act contained the necessary protections for religious freedom.
As signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act included valuable provisions to assure that no federal or state laws could be used to harm the religious or conscience rights of faith-based institutions or their members. In the end, the total law ensures that religious organizations, religious schools, and their staff do not have to perform or host same-sex marriages or celebrations. It protects the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. It protects the grants, licenses, contracts and accreditation of religious schools. And it specifically provides that its own provisions cannot be used to violate anyone’s rights to religious freedom. Putting such protections in the federal law was a big step forward. We will be alert to proposed future state action and legislation as we continue our defense of religious freedom."
- NeuroTypical, mordorbund, Traveler and 5 others
-
6
-
2
-
28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I largely agree with NT
Which parts?
I find the idea that in ye olden days of the 1970s the brethren in the church all felt it was hunky-dory to essentially rape your wife against her will because she should have just known better in getting married is ridiculous. Nor do I think there was as much of a universal "deep and hostile distrust of counseling, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and mood altering medication" as he implied either. Sure there was some. Still is. And rightly so, imo. Of course being distrustful of psychology and believing it's okay to force yourself on your wife aren't even remotely in the same categories either. So...that's a bit of a strange thing to throw out there as "similarly".
- Vort, NeuroTypical and Just_A_Guy
-
3
-
17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
I absolutely agree that someone can’t just gobble Prozac from their couch, never do anything and expect their mental health to magically improve.
My experience tells me that there are many a case where using Prozac (or similar) from the couch does, indeed, "magically" improve mental health.
- LDSGator, mirkwood and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
1
-
2 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:
If I’m cooking, I’d rather have a diverse set of spices and seasonings to work with
Yeah. But you probably wouldn't be dumping garlic, thyme, paprika, ginger, cinnamon, all-spice, sage, vanilla, cloves, cardamom, mustard, rosemary, etc., etc., into every dish, and then declare your pumpkin pie superior for it.
-
14 minutes ago, Vort said:
I find I have difficulty separating performance from testimony. The two seemed intertwined, to the point that if I am going to bear authentic testimony from my heart, I feel almost obligated to reveal myself as I am, including silly jokes and wordplay.
By the way...this says pretty well what I was trying to convey about musical performances.
-
Just now, Vort said:
I have often been guilty of pulpit joke-cracking. When I examined myself candidly, I concluded that the jokes were meant as a performance of sorts, and not as a means to focus people on the worship of God. So I tend to try to avoid jokes at the pulpit.
See this is interesting. I see the point. But...another thing I see... a good joke that actually gets laughs is a way to engage. And as I said before... engagement is key to things. My "job" as it were in speaking, teaching, etc., is engagement. And when someone tells a joke and I laugh...and then give a meaningful, well spoken-talk, the joke doesn't diminish from the meaningful, well-spoken talk. (I see you allude to what I'm saying here later in your post).
2 minutes ago, Vort said:I have difficulty separating performance from testimony. The two seemed intertwined, to the point that if I am going to bear authentic testimony from my heart, I feel almost obligated to reveal myself as I am, including silly jokes and wordplay.
I agree.
2 minutes ago, Vort said:Still struggling with how to bear sincere testimony that touches people, such that they may remember the testimony years later without having any recollection of who offered it. Maybe that's not even possible.
I just look at it like this. Do my best and leave the rest to agency and God.
4 minutes ago, Vort said:As for other people's jokes at the pulpit, I usually find them somewhat distracting.
I do too...because most of them aren't that good.
Do you find the humor at General Conference distracting too?
5 minutes ago, Vort said:But I try consciously to avoid assigning any motives to them and instead seek to listen with a spiritual ear at what they're trying to convey. The more I try, the more success I seem to have. It's a very gradual process, but I do perceive some growth there. So that's encouraging.
I'm in the same boat. For me it's boring talks. Actually that's more of a struggle of listening at all. And...the biggest struggle I have...when someone says something that I disagree with. Boy howdy will that destroy the rest of the meeting for me.
-
21 minutes ago, Vort said:
They certainly need not be at odds. The older I get, the more I find my emotions intruding on my spirituality. I think maybe this is a good thing, a way of integrating two aspects of my being that should be working together.
But emotion is often easily confused with the Spirit. I have witnessed this in Church since my earliest childhood days. I was put off by the hypocrisy of people who would stand crying and blubbering in testimony meeting but treat people unkindly and be much less than honest in their dealings with others outside of sacrament meeting. It seemed hypocrisy to me, at least. It taught me that feeling some emotion at the moment, or seeing others display emotion, was in no way an indicator of real spiritual involvement. That was a lesson I learned perhaps too well, and it has taken most of my sixty years to begin to unlearn it. My bias is still to distrust overt emotionalism labeled as spiritual experience, though I do recognize that as a bias and am exploring other options for how to perceive such things.
Hey...we do agree! You're biased!
J/k. I mean sort of. We're all biased. I am certainly biased towards musical performances. If they're good. I despise poorly executed ones...especially when they think they're good... (Which, based on my bragging in the previous post may, actually, be me.)
-
51 minutes ago, Vort said:
But that was not at all what was being said.
What is the real goal of our testimony that we are bearing in Church? Is it to testify of the Savior and bring the voice of the Spirit into the hearts of the listeners? Or is it to draw attention to ourselves? That latter thing need not be an attempt to draw plaudits or admiration. Merely saying "Look at me!" tends to draw attention away from where it belongs.
It merely strikes me that you might have a tendency to interpret a good "performance" as a "Look at me!" moment, which may not have anything to do with what's going on. I'll accept I might be misinterpreting.
I, for example, am a relatively good singer. Relative to the non-singer I'm very good. (Relative to a pro I'm...okay.) I grew up singing a lot. When I was a teenager I sang in church quite often with a "Look at me" sense behind it. (Mostly, I'd say, trying to appeal to cute girls. It didn't work, btw.) Now that I'm older and WAY better a singer, WAY better a performer, etc., I have no interest in singing in church. I have been asked many times because I sing well. I almost always say no because I'm lazy and don't have any "Look at me" ambitions in the matter. (Well...I can't say none. But for the most part.) But every once in a while I'm convinced to sing because it's a "service" or I feel bad for the music director or the like. So when I do sing, I sing as well as I can. I perform as well as I can. I feel positive that some take my efforts in that regard as "Look at me" and have the Spirit driven away accordingly. I feel positive that others are moved and drawn closer to the Spirit. The difference is them, not me. As for me, if I'm going to serve the Lord, I'm going to give it my best, using every tool I have available to try and communicate what I feel should be communicated. That translates to a performance. It's a different performance that I'd give were I singing outside of church...but a performance nonetheless. Because, just like good teaching techniques, singing performance is a technique and a tool for communication.
51 minutes ago, Vort said:There are times that it may be appropriate to say, "I am an example of blah blah," either for positive or negative. But in all cases, the intent should always be to testify of Christ and his works, and not a bid for attention. When the hymn being sung or played becomes an opportunity for the singer or player to reveal his virtuosity or demonstrate deep emotional interpretations, it ceases to be an act of worship and becomes a form of immodesty and hypocrisy. That should always be avoided.
I agree, but I think it's motivationally based. A demonstration of deep emotional interpretation isn't, de facto, indications of the singer's focus. Obviously immodesty should be avoided.
But I've seen similar complaints about people who cry when bearing testimony. People get annoyed at it. They don't see it as sincere. They think it's cheesy, performative, and put on. And I get the point. I get your point. And I think it is well worth consideration in each performer's mind as they prepare. But you said you have "heard in Church what I considered to be performances", and that implied to me that you (and I expect, also in what Orson Scot Card) meant that the interpretation of the performance isn't the issue...but the performance itself. I absolutely agree that people shouldn't be performing for the sake of themselves. I don't agree with the implication (or inference on my part) that the performance itself is a reliable indicator for that state. If that's not part of your (or Card's) meaning then we don't disagree on the matter.
But.... I think that even when, for example, a young teen girl stands up and sings a song in church modeling the vocal stylings of Idina Menzel's performance of Let It Go, that it's still primarily on us, individually, whether that can be a spiritual moment or not. People do all sorts of flawed things in church. In point of fact, I'd say if we're counting on others to feel the Spirit at church, we're going to go long and far between spiritual experiences at church.
So I think we agree after all....except maybe in our understanding of what a "performance" is.
Just out of curiosity, and I think related...what do you think about jokes cracked at the pulpit?
-
31 minutes ago, Vort said:
I could not agree with him more. We should always seek to avoid turning a sacrament meeting talk or gospel doctrine lesson, or for that matter anything of any sacred significance, into performance art.
Goodness me...I could not disagree more. Interesting.
To me that's like saying we should all bear our testimonies in robot voices without any emotional inflection whatsoever.
31 minutes ago, Vort said:The focus should never, ever be on us,
This is an internal thing though, not an external one. Someone who gives a moving, emotional performance of a song may or may not have pride in doing so. That doesn't affect the "performance" nature of the performance.
Putting "performance" and "worship" at odds one with another, as if they're mutually exclusive, is just not correct (no offense, Orson Scott Card).
31 minutes ago, Vort said:Nibley claimed that The Church (meaning the ancient Roman Catholic Church) replaced spirit with emotion and rhetoric. I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to determine whether that is the case, but there is certainly truth in the idea. The irony is that such overwrought emotionalism is (in my view) the antithesis of a spiritual experience.
Once again...why do emotion and the Spirit need to be at odds and mutually exclusive? My experience is they go hand in hand. Emotion replacing the Spirit is a problem. But emotion AND the Spirit seems pretty legit for a lot of people. I know some people dislike it. My brother has the same sort of sentiment. But rejecting it as if it's not a reality for many feels mistaken to me.
31 minutes ago, Vort said:I have on occasion heard in Church what I considered to be performances, and I think the experience was lessened thereby.
But do you recognize that, perhaps, those experiences may have been some of the most spiritual for others who interact with the world, emotions, and the Spirit differently?
As for myself, the emotionless, academic performances (because, let's be clear here...it's all performance at some level) leave me cold, asleep, bored, and make it harder to engage. And I think we'd agree either way....not engaged is a guaranteed way to not feel the Spirit. And that's my point. People engage differently and for different reasons.
Edit: Btw, "reverently" is a "performance" method. And I'm not suggesting all performance methods are appropriate.
- Comp and Just_A_Guy
-
1
-
1
-
32 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:
"Teaching" AI has a few interpretations, depending on what information you consider essential. In the Amazon example, removing sex from the database would be sufficient, and thus forcing it to focus on other factors. Instead, Amazon seems to have abandoned the project altogether. I would imagine it wasn't very successful at picking good employees, which is another way of saying that Amazon didn't have the data available to correctly identify them*.
It's such a fascinating thing to think on. Because if you remove all feeling from the equation, it probably IS best practice to prefer men. I mean just in the simple fact that women might have babies. That fact alone would likely mean a logic-only conclusion should recommend hiring men.
Removing data (like sex) from the equation actually means the results aren't accurate. Projected to other concepts, I think that can become problematic pretty quickly.
I mean it's seen in various industries already. Does plastering some political message across one's website really increase sales? I think not. I would think a computer, without being "taught" otherwise, would spit out advise to avoid politics. And yet, I would expect that with what's going on with ESG and the WEF and all that, that companies would want politics programmed into their systems so they can accommodate ideologies rather than facts.
And at a higher philosophical level, I can't say that approach is wrong. It's just that I would want the ideologies that I believe are right programmed in and not the ones I consider flawed. Which, as I said, fascinates me.
-
15 minutes ago, Vort said:
An admirable display of dedication. I agree in principle. I think. But why did God put his kingdom on the earth if not to teach his people to avoid perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? Sometimes I have to actively remind myself that God is somewhat smarter than I am.
There was, really, one thing that bothers me in some of the changes to the temple. Among other related endowment changes that I won't specify, was the fact that women were doing a bunch of the jobs that used to be only men. And I should clarify why that bothered me... because it wasn't the women doing the jobs that bothered me. I mean on a logical level, why shouldn't women be able to scan recommends? Why shouldn't they be able to say, "Welcome to the temple. Please follow me to the endowment room"? There's nothing about those things that would even begin to imply only men should do them. Having women do them is, logically, reasonable, wise, and useful.
Rather, it was the automatic inference I made that it's catering to the perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training the world's been so anxiously engaged in. I have to suppress that inference. It must be some biases on my part.
But this particular issue (so-called women's "equality") is one that I cannot reconcile with the gospel. It feels like the concepts of presiding in the home, the patriarchal order, and priesthood authority, have lost pretty much all meaning. So were those concepts wrong? Or is there some catering going on for the weak among us. I legitimately don't know how to think on the matter. As a matter of practice, my wife and I are traditionalists. I call on who says prayers in our home. But am I just a relic holding on to outdated and mistaken practices in that sort of thing? And if so, does that mean I'm perpetuating things that are not correct to my children?
I don't know. I'm going with my best guess that I'm not. I know that some would very much disagree with me though...and, frankly, they'd have the church's current approach to such things on their side. It causes me some level of cognitive dissonance. That cognitive dissonance makes me overly sensitive to such changes in the temple.
Apparently the husband still presides in the home...but that means absolutely nothing.
-
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:
I'm confused about why you're using language that implies a present tense. Past tense would seem more appropriate.
True. When it comes to stupid ideas, I was pretty much the bitter-old-man starting about.....in junior high school.
-
3 minutes ago, Vort said:
By the way, Ron Perlman may not be a traditional Hollywood pretty boy like, say, Tom Cruise, but he still has a rugged, masculine handsomeness that many women find attractive. As with Jeff Goldblum, you could do a whole lot worse than Ron Perlman. Embrace the comparison. Take it as a compliment.
Haha. Yeah...he definitely pulls off the rugged masculinity better than I do.
Honestly my side comment implying it was an offensive comparison was entirely a joke. I really don't care.
And, having met you, btw. You look nothing like like Jeff Goldblum. Well....that's not true. You're white, have two eyes, two ears and a nose...........
-
13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:
So I'd encourage you to try to think less about why it bothers you and more about what impact it could make for others.
Nah. I'm steadily moving into the bitter-old-man stage of my life.
13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:I believe that when we have a reasonable ability to do things to improve another's ability to grow in the gospel, we should do them.
Per @Vort's comment... Is it improving another's ability to grow in the gospel to cater to their perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? I mean...maybe it is in cases. It certainly seems to be the case that the church has done just that sometimes.
-
5 minutes ago, Vort said:
I was told once that I looked like a less attractive version of Jeff Goldblum. I took it as a compliment. You could do a lot worse.
I don't see it anyway. I think it's like when people tell me and my wife our not-genetically-related daughter looks like my wife and I'm like...yeah....they're both white with blond hair and blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose. It really depends on how much "like" counts in looking alike. Yes. I look like Ron Perlman...we're both white with similar hair color, blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose.
Saved from our sin instead of in our sin
in Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
Posted
If one is going to use semantics in this way, it strikes me that it's easy enough to de-paradox the issue by looking at it thusly: Christ paid for our sins. But that doesn't mean there's no price for us to pay for repentance. The price given is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. We don't pay the full price of sin, but we must all pay the price Christ set for us.