sixpacktr

I know that for some women it may seem stupid, but Vort is right. We not only are expected, but expect ourselves to be able to control our emotions, whatever they may be. Let's face it, at least for my generation, your model was a John Wayne-esque cowboy, never giving into emotion, to fear, anything. You went out and DID. The emotions were for the women (sorry, I know that is male chauvinistic of me, but there it is). I see Elder Eyring, more than any of the others, get choked up, but he never LOSES it. He is able to talk thru it, doesn't stop, etc. My mom used to call me a bawl-gut. My wife makes fun of me because when we were dating we saw ET and I cried when he died. Maybe I was supposed to be a girl's dad (which I was). If I'd've had sons, they'd've been merciless!

I cry like a little girl at times during my talks. I have learned, thru speaking, to not out and out weep, but I get choked up from time to time. Some of it is emotion, some of it is the Spirit bearing witness things to me. It happens during prayers as well. Nothing to be ashamed of. One time, many years ago, in PH meeting, I was asked to read 2nd Nephi, Chapter 4 (Nephi's Soliloquy) (sp??). The teacher thought that I'd take about 30 or 40 seconds. I cried like a baby. O wretched man that I am! still touches me deeply. I think it took me about 5 mins. I was embarrassed, but what are you gonna do? We're a bunch of gurly men...

Wish I could watch it. I'm on DTV, and they are having a p***ing contest with Versus right now, so I can't watch it. I guess I'll just have to listen online at KSL and watch an SEC game tomorrow night. Arghhh!

Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell FSU that... Then this game would be between 2 top 10 teams instead...

Well, you wouldn't use 'kimi' with someone you wouldn't know, again unless you want to insult them. For the most part, you will be cut a lot of slack as a gaijin in what you say, at least when it comes to verb endings, etc. In church, people talk regular Japanese, just like everywhere else, but you will find during prayers that it isn't just honorific language that is used but almost a high honorific (lots of '-sama', 'de gozaimasu', 'irrashaimasu', etc.). That all comes with practice, but I didn't worry that much about it. Anyway, anything other than 'anata' when referring to the person you're talking to (not anta, kimi, omae, etc) or 'watakushi' (not 'ore', although 'boku' can be used, but is more a male child's way of referring to himself) you may want to steer clear of.

Me too. He was all over the place on TV.

Thanks for the quote Hemi. I remember as a youth hearing of Joseph's encounter with Satan at the spot where Cain killed Abel. Joseph rebuked him and told him to leave and Satan left weeping and wailing because of its significance to him. I also remember a story of one of the early brethren with an encounter with Cain, while riding a horse somewhere in Missouri. My folks had lots of church books that I would read when I lived there, so I can't cite references, unfortunately, since I don't have access to them now, but I clearly remember these stories. We shouldn't be surprised at them. And Joseph had at least one other encounter with Satan not too far from where I live now...

Personally, I'd be more worried about this guy:

What's next? Dirty or disapproving looks? Sending to their room without *gasp* supper? Not buying them a new car when they turn 16? Kids drive you nuts from time to time, even the best of them. I had great kids, never did anything major that kept us up worrying where they were or what they were doing. But guess what? Sometimes I'd really let them have it when they were disrespectful to their mother, or didn't do something I'd asked, or smarted off to me, etc. Sometimes I'd overreacted, in which case I went up and apologized, and other times I didn't. The young parents of today seem to think that parenting can be found in a book. What bull crap! All the book does is make the author rich. Parenting is being with your kids, doing things with them, and yes, occasionally getting mad at them and yelling or spanking. Doesn't hurt their precious little psyches. We are raising a generation of wussies...Sure hope that when we go to war with the Ruskies or ChiComs they are 'nice' to them so that they don't hurt their feelings...

Mary was not married yet when she was overshadowed by the HG, simply betrothed. A little different.And I'd like to have a reference that says that Michael was an exalted being that came to earth again to take on a mortal tabernacle. Sounds a lot like Adam/God. And Noah? That one is new to me. And Joseph was not God Incarnate...

It's okay Maxel. When you get married you'll have to turn in your man card, so keep it as long as you can. I had 3 daughters, no sons. I watch chick flicks and LIKE them (since none of you know my secret identity, I don't care that you know!), I have to go shopping. Want to watch the game? But I wanted to watch 'High School Musical' for the 90th time this week! is what you hear, and guess what? you don't get to see the game.. But the ultimate is when you wake up in the morning next to the woman you love, full of wonder that she actually married YOU. Then she wakes up, gives you a glare that would melt steel, and stalks off. You wonder at this, ask questions, wonder some more, and then 2 days later you find out that she had a DREAM and in the DREAM you were mean to her. Oh yes, you WILL be in trouble for things your wife dreams about you.... Thought you ought to know...

Worked, Tarnished, worked....There is absolutely no other way I marry my wife otherwise. Had to get her tired first, and then feeling pity....

Exactly. The Lord expects nothing less than that of us. If it were otherwise, and we just followed what others told us to do to 'make it', then we are actually following Satan's plan of easy salvation. Funny you should mention someone told you he'd had revelation that you were supposed to marry him. Big problem at BYU, I know, and it seems that a GA mentioned that in a talk not too long ago. I, personally, ascribe to the time tested way of getting someone to marry you. 'You can't make someone love you, you can only stalk them until they give in'...

Oh yeah. Personal revelation should always accompany this. Just as when we hear things from our leaders in SLC or otherwise. Ponder over it and gain our own testimony of what they said. In some very rare cases we will be told something different, but I think that is very rare.

Far be it for me to question you in this Tarnished, and pls understand that I am not doing so. However, I have a friend that was told in no uncertain terms by his Mission President that he was NOT to marry a Japanese girl, that if he did so, he would go inactive and do things he shouldn't do. He told the MP to basically stuff it, and when I heard this story from him many, many years ago, I agreed with him that the MP was out of line, as my friend was active, a HP, doing what he should do.Then I met him several years later. He was having problems with the church, had taken up drinking, was criticizing local leaders, etc. Now he and his wife are totally inactive and blame their Bishop for their plight. It breaks my wife's and my heart as they are dear friends, but they want nothing to do with the church, as do their children. So again, pls, PLS, don't take this wrong. And perhaps in this matter your Bishop was overstepping his bounds. But those with stewardship over us can receive revelation for us at times, and while not immediately apparent, it can happen later. Again, not that I am hoping or saying it will to you. I hope you understand that.

I see where you are coming from Bytor, and in most cases a simple 'yes' suffices. Your example of the SP asking about intimate details btw a husband/wife definitely crosses a line. However, given the most kids today just don't know what is and isn't sex (can you define 'is', the widespread belief among the youth the somehow oral sex isn't really sex since there isn't actual intercourse involved) I don't fault this Bishop with probing a tad more. Now, we are basing this on the OP's feelings of being embarrassed, and not knowing her, embarrassing for her may not be even close to embarrassing to me (or vice versa). I liked with WmLee stated in that it is directed by the Spirit. If I were a Bishop of a Singles Ward, I'd be more 'nosy' than I would be in a married/regular mixed ward as a precaution, at least in the first interview, to make sure that things are understood. After that, not so much...

Having been in a Bishopric, and at the time having our youth go wild when they hit 16 (the boys in particular seemed to think that impregnating anything in a skirt was the thing to do), our interviews took on a very personal and detailed manner. We didn't want to do it, believe me, but felt as Jacob did when he told the Nephites that he wished he could only speak of the peaceable things of the Kingdom, but had to speak of things that would wound tender hearts. I wouldn't read too much into it. FT's response is classic: the answer to all of them is 'no'.

I have heard others use the 'HF was married to Mary' explanation before, because there is an implication of sexual relations in order for Christ to be born. Wouldn't that act, of necessity, have made Mary a 'non-virgin'? And, if we follow that reasoning, wouldn't the relations have been incestuous? The bible states that she was 'overcome by the power of the HG' or some such wording. Where is there any connotation of sexual relations in this phrase? I don't know how HF did it, and to me we are treading on some sacred ground here so we ought to be careful, but as someone said earlier, with in-vitro, cloning, etc., that we can do now, I'm sure that HF could figure out a way to make this happen. All I know is that the BoM testifies again to Christ's divinity, and as him being the Only Begotten of the Father, the literal Son of God.

Dravin,I spoke out of school on this. It is NOT in the US Constitution--it was the generally accepted practice (and in fact, the assumption that only landowners would be able to vote). My mistake on that. Thank you for correcting me. I do think you have it right in that it was left up to the States (as it should be) as a matter for the residents of that state to determine. Hence the Jim Crow laws, the fight for women's suffrage, all happened on a state by state basis (again, IMO, as it should be).

If it was Glenn or someone else, he is right on. We seem to be testing that theory to the max these days...

No, but it did say that you had to be a landowner... Got crucified for even MENTIONING that here about 2 years ago, so I won't go down that path again...

All I could see, if it was restored and I was allowed to take another wife, is another woman in the house. I had 3 daughters, a female dog, and a cat that wasn't male anymore. I was all alone as it was, and adding more estrogen in the house would NOT go well for me. All it would create is another ally for my wife!

It really gets down to: if people aren't sure of the candidate's positions, but only recognize 'I should vote D or R' then they have no business being in a voting booth in the first place. Too often people vote based upon a letter behind a name, or someone's smile, or their race, and NOT on what they stand for. It would not be unreasonable to me to require some type of test before you can vote. What are the issues? Where do the candidates stand? You'd eliminate half of the stupid people there, and make people understand who they are voting for. This ploy just makes a class of people dependent upon the gov't teat to feed them and tell them how to vote...

Not dems, per se. The party itself. It has been hijacked by radicals that worship Mao, Che, Hugo and the like. The dems I know locally are nothing like this, but they don't like repubs, so they vote dem. Much like a lot of repubs I know are fed up with the gutless wonders we have 'representing' us. So I don't see it as a 'hate dem' thread, but rather another thread to show how the current administration is controlling how we live...