Urstadt

Source for first two: YSA bishopric during a 5th Sunday when all three spoke in sacrament meeting. The first speaker, second counselor, covered the history of the priesthood before the restoration and the restoration of the priesthood. The second speaker, first counselor, talked about the history of the priesthood in the church since its restoration. The third speaker, bishop, reiterated highlights of both counselors' talks and then emphasized the importance of the priesthood today. Thank you for the fact checks. :) Thank you for the spelling corrections. :) Source for third one: mission president.

Sorry.... :/

After the ban was lifted, Elder McConkie was approached and asked why it was in place for so long and now suddenly lifted. His answer was, "We were wrong. Let's move on." And, then he quietly walked away.It is interesting that the ban was lifted after Mark E. Peterson passed away. He told the church that they would fall into apostasy and incur the wrath of God if they ever gave blacks the priesthood. Personally, and I agree that no one knows for sure but, I believe it took as long as it did because that was the first time, since President Young, that every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were in agreement to lift the ban. Speaking of that explanation, there may be some modifications coming once President Packer passes away. Those of you who follow the stories will know that President Hinckley, and I believe others as well, have posed modifications that allegedly do not sit well with President Packer and he opposed. I don't know. We'll see.

We don't like that term. We prefer "restorer".

Smith & Wesson

Crap.... :/

Greek Orthodox. It's the next closest to the Christ's established church. If I am wrong about that, then I would be which ever one is the closest. But, I'm pretty sure it Greek Orthodox.

Where I live, there is a gang I learned about in my gang awareness training put on by the Sherriff's department. They have a reputation that they pride themselves on maintaining. They attack in 4-man teams with shotguns, baseball bats, rope, and condoms. Their plan is the same everytime. Kill whoever opens the door with the shotgun: no time to respond to respond to that. (If no one answers the door, they shhot their way in with the shotgun.) Then, they storm in, tie up both the men and the women. They beat the men with the bats, to maintain their brutality reputation among the gang community, and rape the women. A four-man team with a shotgun, a baseball bat, and rope, high on uppers that take away pain, is not something any human being will ever defend against with martial arts, pepper spray, or a tazer. Especially because everyone who is sprayed or tazed always has 1-3 seconds to get a shot off before they hit the ground and are incapacitated. Even if you incapacitate one of them, the other 3 will get you. No, the only way you defend aganist that is a tactical shotgun or a pistol with extended magazines, and a planned out emergency response plan that your family practices during some family home evenings. That gang, that I learned about, is located < 10 miles from my house.

Would you be ok with the cable lock that comes with the gun? It completely disables it. :)

Here's my breakdown: S&W M&P 9 with night sights S&W M&P 9c with night sights S&W M&P Shield 9 with night sights CZ 75 PCR "comfy" 9mm Walther PK380 (my wife's carry gun) Robinson XCR L with red dot Mossberg 500 Tactical

Just wanted to post two of my favorite pictures.

I completely agree with you, pipeorgan. I sincerely was trying to be mindful of how I came across to you. But, I do need to be mindful that everyone has different communication styles. If I rubbed you the wrong way, or said something that could have been taken the wrong way, then I sincerely apologize. :)

We own several hand guns, a rifle, and a shot gun. We keep everything in a gun safe. My wife and I both carry concealed. I agree with paulsifier, if you're going to get a gun, for recreation or personal protection, be responsible. Take the time to read a few books on home defense, mental conditioning, and conceal carry (two short books would cover all three). Buy the quarterly issues of Home Defense magazine for the first 2 years. Get your CCW, even if your state is constitutional carry (meaning you can conceal without a permit). It looks good in court no matter what. Take at least one shooting lesson--even if it's just watching a half dozen reputable videos on youtube. Go to the range1-4 times per month. Dry fire at home. Secure your weapons at home. You don't necessarily need a safe because all guns come with a cable lock that drops through the chamber and magazine well to completely disable the gun. Know your limits. Know which ammunition carries a good stopping power/penetration ratio. Meaning, it may have some of the highest available stopping power, but it is far more likely to go through your intended target and kill someone on the other side. So, you can't just buy any hollow point and consider yourself good because some hollow points carry a significant chance of passing through your intended target. Also, know the reasonables of a lawful self-defense situation; e.g., it is reasonable to shoot a person, who poses a reasonable threat to your life, when they are within 21 feet of you, because they can close the gap in less than 1.5 seconds; but outside of 21 feet, it is more reasonable to brandish and give warnings/commands (this is how the po-po train). Another exmaple, you may be legally authorized in your state to use deadly force in a self-defense situation, but that doesn't mean you get to empty the magazine! I can't stress enough how much of a responsibility it is. But, I also can't stress enough how urgent it is that you, as mirkwood said, prayerfully consider which choice to make. JAG sets a good example: he knows about home/self defense. But, being the attorney that he is, he knows he isn't a position to do it the right away. So, he's shelved the idea for now.

I want a machine that does the opposite of a microwave. Instead of warming things up, it cools them down. Really, my soda is getting warm and watered down.

I honestly didn't take harpsicord's comment that way. I didn't take pipeorgan's that way either. What I heard was someone's passion for music coming out. I'm not trying to come at you, Leah, or say that your interpretation was wrong. Just throwing it out there that I took it a little differently. That's all. :)

I, too, would prefer that a person gain a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I also agree with paulsifer's points as well. But, pipeorgan, I noticed that you haven't commented since the thread tangent the direction it did, even though you've been on well since its tangent. Sometimes we get a little off track... too much technology made us impeccable multi-taskers. Perhaps so impeccable that we sometimes stray from the question of the person in need. Forgive us. I'm going to make some assumptions below, since this isn't a face-to-face conversation. Please, feel free to come on and correct me if needs be. Pipeorgan, it is more ideal to have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. However, you chose to join based on how the people live their lives and I think that's great! The gospel has a foot in the door in your life. The seed has been planted. :) We are actually encouraged to live this way so that others see the light we shine. That shining causes people to start asking the questions that build and nurture testimonies. So, ask away, and keep asking! You're doing the right thing by asking and trying to gain that testimony now (that is, assuming you don't have one already). Take courage in knowing that testimonies take time to grow and nurture. This is not a bad thing, as paulsifer points out. However, I agree with TFP that if you don't build/nurture it, it is problematic. That is, if you don't do you part to grow it (key caveat here). If I can be of any assistance, please, start threads and I for one will be happy to help out. In the mean time, if I am right with my assumption, please take a look at Alma 32:20-43 You spoke earlier of confirmation bias. I can relate. My training in psychology has brought unwelcomed concerns to my mind at times. But, please remember that confirmation bias requires opposing evidence. There will never be opposing evidence about Christ's true religion. That makes conf. bias null and void. As far as your concerns about being led astray by your emotions: again, I can relate. And I think a good many in the church with strong testimonies can relate as well. Still, I refer you to Alma's experiment quoted above. As that seed grows, your faith will be so strong you will no longer doubt. This will be because you feel the Holy Ghost bearing testimony. Here is a talk I highly recommend as well: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2004/04/but-if-not?lang=eng

I believe we should question everything. But, I agree with what Paulsifer and JAG have said: it shouldn't be done nihilistically or with accusations. Regarding confirmation bias: don't forget that confirmation bias is when we exclude challenging, true evidence. It's not just when we only believe what we want. I believe gravity works every time. *Throws keys up in the air* Yep! Gravity still works! Now, is this confirmation bias? No. There is no evidence against my belief to ignore. With religion, there can be no confirmation bias because there is no evidence against it to ignore in the interest of confirming our biased beliefs. Does that make sense?

Rofl... that made me LOL. Maybe they can get Wierd Al to write their school anthem by covering and changing the lyrics to Metallica's song.

I was thinking about our founding fathers as I read this. Good points.

Sorry man, I didn't see this until now. Yes, I am a counselor. I use a phenomenological approach called Ontological Hermeneutics. Feel free to private message me if you ever want to chat more.

Charlie Chaplin was talked about on Pawn Stars last night.

I see this from so many angles. On the one hand, BYU has every right to set their standards. On the other, some may receive an unpleasant and contradictory message. That shouldn't be BYU's fault, but we are taught as children that we are reaponsible for all the messages we send, intended or unintended. Companies hire entire PR reps for this very reason. However, the highest standards of professionalism being kept shines favorably on any institution. The problem with "highest standards" and "best practices" (not so much an issue in this case) is that you can always do more! It never ends. Arbitrary decisions are always made that determine where the bar is. And the recourse, with all institutions, always seems to be circular: "We do this because it's best practices. Why is it best practices? Because people agreed it should be. Why did they agree to that? Because it's best practices." Or, in the case, best practices = the highest standards of professionalism. But, that also means that this decision by BYU is not made in a vacuum! It mirrors the standards of professionalism throughout world wide professional community. But, someone else may ask why BYU is so concerned with its image. They would invoke our doctrines of pride and being of the world vs. in the world. That's a debate that would go round and round and would never be settled collectively, only via individual belief. I've also seen some members use the church as recourse for BYU while others say that BYU is a separate entity: the latter being more true than the former in actuality. It is true that if people don't like BYU's honor code, they can go somewhere else. Education is voluntary, as is which university to attend. At the same time, if there are only 3 Mormon schools in the US (2 on the mainland), then being told, "don't like it, go somewhere else" really doesn't equate to avoiding Walmart for the same reasons because there's Target, Kohl's, grocery stores, Best Buy, Sports Authority, Amazon, Ebay, shopping malls, Autozone, car dealerships, Discount Tire, Home Depot, Lowe's, Walgreens, CVS, Office Max, Staples, Game Stop, Hobby Lobby, Ikea, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond, Pier 1, and Dollar stores. These debates have the potential go on forever, many times unresolved. It's important to pick and choose battles. It's also important to pick every battle that can have a bearing on whether or not we get into the Celestial Kingdom.

That's taking it a little further than I intended in my brief, not-very-descriptive post (meaning, that because I wasn't too descriptive, the misunderstanding is on me and not you). My previous two posts were not so much about what causes happiness as they were to say the our discussion on this thread would be considered wrong by CBT and evidence-based research. Paradoxically, I am making that point to actually prove CBT wrong.

Emotion is a proto-response to the environment. It's job is to tell us the moral worth of something. Basically, it serves as an affective awareness for us. Check out Jonathan Haidt, Jaak Panskepp, and Charles Taylor.

I wanted to add some side comments that are still on point with the thread. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is counseling's leading umbrella therapy (meaning there are many cognitive-based therapies that fall under the CBT umbrella). In the early 1990's, more than 80% of therapists considered themselves to be some kind of cognitive-based therapist. The umbrella itself also has some of the worst forms of therapy out there, despite their "empirical" support. The most basic premise of CBT is this: all emotion is caused by thought; if you feel something, it's because a thought first caused it. So, the most common/basic way to practice CBT is challenge cognitive distortions (thinking errors), negative thinking, and irrational/negative core beliefs. By challenging them, clients learn how to "reframe" their negative and/or distorted thoughts into something more positive and "logical." I kid no one on here when I say that I have seen therapists first hand tell clients that they can be happy without one or more of the following, or challenge clients' "cognitive distortion" when they say they need one or more of the following to be happy: Now I want to demonstrate what a CBT therapist might say to four comments on this thread: A CBT therapist would call this belief "all-or-nothing" thinking, "black-and-white" thinking, or "arbitrary inference" (jumping to conclusions). They would then prompt you to reframe this cognitive distortion. The reason: that kind of thinking challenges the basic premise of CBT: your thoughts alone can change your emotions from sad to happy. A CBT therapist is going to question the effects of these "constraints" on your emotional state and prompt you to challenge your thinking by helping you to see that these commandments restrict your access to unlimited happiness. A CBT therapist might say here that you should only worry about yourself, that you are the sole source of happiness. On the other hand, a CBT therapist may agree with this mind set so long as the therapist approves of who you choose and what the person you choose is doing. The job of the CBT therapist is to look for incongruent thoughts. A comment like this will throw flags up and sounds alarms in a CBT therapist's mind. They will help you to challenge this belief by helping you "logically" work out that the two thoughts are contradictory and that entertaining them both is restricting your overall happiness. --------------------------------------------- I agree with every user's comment I've quoted in this post. That's one reason why I hate CBT with a dire passion and have out right attacked it in my scholarship. Fortunately, I am not the only scholar who has. But, here's the catch I would like to share with all who are interested: CBT is considered an evidenced-based practice. Meaning, it's "scientifically" proven to work. The upshot: psychology and science have proven everyone of you wrong. And to that, I say: