PolarVortex

The email address I used when registering for this site has not received any newsletter, then.

Well, there's a new expression I must add to my list of day-brightening encouragements. Maybe they're not saying "it sucks to be you." Maybe they're really saying, "It sucks to be where you are right now," and you are hearing it as "it sucks to be you." Have you enjoyed the experience of being sweaty and grimy on a hot summer day and then running outside as the rain starts? The warm raindrops cover you head to toe like a water avalanche and seem to wash away your troubles, leaving you feeling fresh and renewed. That's what unconditional love feels like to me (but I like your Grinch example, too). I feel it from my mom, from a few of my relatives, from most dogs I meet, and even in a grudging way from my cat. I would not focus on erasing the negative things in life. I would focus instead on filling my life with good things, like love, and it will push the bad stuff out. I don't mean to sound smug or syrupy here. Your comments reveal that you have gone through a lot and need some industrial-strength healing. I totally agree with Eowyn's comment above.

I got one... and at an email address that my ward could not possibly know. I was mystified for a few days until I remembered that I subscribe to the LDSTech newsletter... and to LDSJobs, which posted a staggering 11,797 jobs within a 25-mile radius of my home city. Nothing at Starbucks, I notice.

I never did well in my religious algebra courses, but I think you might have the wrong operator. It's X * Y = Z in my book, not X + Y. I've enjoyed your comments immensely, even though I tend to lurk in topics that set off my smoke detector. Hope you come back often.

All through Scriptures we read of humans who were flawed tools in the hands of God. Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land because of his disobedience. Peter denied Christ three times, and Paul (under his previous Saul persona) killed many Christians. Some people have picked up this idea that all prophets are controlled by God like puppets, and that everything the prophet does or says is inerrant. When the prophet's flaws are later revealed, these people become very conflicted. Einstein had a child out of wedlock, but that's not a reason to doubt the theory of relativity. This is not a totally fair comparison to religion, because Einstein never claimed to speak for God. But the basic idea is the same. If a person stumbles upon some great truth or becomes the conduit for divine power, it doesn't follow that the person is perfect in all things. My understanding is that Joseph Smith himself regarded revelation as a slow, collaborative process, sort of like gradually chipping away at a block of marble to release a beautiful statue. And I think he had a desire to restore parts of the ancient church and saw some divine streaks in the concept of polygamy that he thought made sense in his time. If that led to things we now regard as very odd, it doesn't change our need to find and follow streaks of the divine in all things. Someone (Richard Bushman, perhaps) once said that he actually liked the idea of God speaking through flawed humans. I've always believed that God is the compass who aligns and orients us but does not force us down specific paths. Having a compass doesn't mean we'll never get lost. It just means that we will eventually find our way home.

I think kids spend a lot of brainpower on decisions, which adults can twist to their advantage. A friend of mine who is a nurse once told me she never enters a room with a child and says, "Okay, I'm going to give you a shot," because the kid panics and becomes hard to control. Instead, she says something like, "Tell me if you want your shot in your right arm or your left arm," and the kid focuses on the decision and defocuses from the shot... and is often easier to handle.

Yes, quite nice. I enjoyed it a lot. Bravo.

Number 1 (was it called Star Trek: The Motion Picture?) was wall-to-wall boring. Who was it who said, "I'd walk out of that movie, even on an airplane"? As I watched it, I was half-expecting the characters to break the 4th wall and blurt out something like, "Who wrote this awful screenplay?" They should have just used "Number 1" as the movie title, because that's what it was. One critic, Harold Livingston, wrote that the film consisted of spaceships that "take an unconscionable amount of time to get anywhere, and nothing of dramatic or human interest happens along the way." (Wikipedia) Numbers 2 and 3 (Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock) are terrific and prove that nobody really dies in Hollywood movies. (Reminds me of that great line from Dark Shadows, where Barnabas the vampire snaps, "I didn't say she was dead. I said I killed her.") Anyway, I vote for 2 and 3 as the best. As I recall, even Siskel and Ebert gave Wrath of Khan two enthusiastic thumbs-up. Number 4 (The Voyage Home) was more light-hearted and reportedly caused shockwaves of laughter in Utah theaters when Kirk tried to say "LSD" but it came out "LDS." I think my house is even visible in one scene. It's a madcap romp with whales, starships, and a very puzzled Mr. Scott in front of a 1986 Apple Macintosh. The rest are so-so. I would watch them on my rowing machine, but not on my sofa with nothing else to do. And I don't think you need to watch them in order except for 2 and 3. In fact, watching them grossly out of sequence probably wouldn't diminish your understanding of the plot because all the plots are standalone yawners.

On my last trip to Germany I had to decide whether I wanted to visit Hamburg or some other city. I picked the other city because I read the following in Wikitravel about the Reeperbahn: "Be very careful when entering a dance bar at the Reeperbahn. Many of the clubs have the reputation of ripping off the tourists with the bills. The most common trick is that a girl in the bars asks if she could order something to drink. If positive answer is given (and a positive answer could be even the slightest movement, without even saying it), she is most likely to order a bottle of champagne of up to 500 Euro or more. If the customer is unwilling or incapable of paying the bill, he/she will be escorted to the nearby ATM to withdraw the cash. If you happen to be in such a situation, try to attract the attention of the police, in the end you could get out with smaller bill." (Note to readers outside the Eurozone: €500 is US$619.66 or about £394. I've purchased automobiles for less.)

Welcome from an American who adores anything British. Well, except for haggis and bubble & squeak.

A feeling could be the shadow of evidence. A long time ago I read that Richard Dawkins claimed to live his life on the assumption that God doesn't exist. I became the opposite, and I called myself an "anatheist," or one with an absence of disbelief in God. Later I pulled an anti-Dawkins and started living my life on the assumption that God does exist. That simple step opened up spaces within me that God filled. Jesus' words really were true for me: "If you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, 'May you be uprooted and thrown into the sea,' and it would obey you!" (Luke 17:6) Another vivid hyperbole from Jesus. If it were literally true, I'd be using my powers to weed my garden really fast, believe me. But the point to me is that faith is the root of all goodness.

Christmas in a microtown in Nevada. On Christmas morning everyone opens gifts and feigns surprise and delight, even though all the gifts had been sitting out unwrapped for days on the kitchen table and had provoked many scornful comments from recipients who didn't think their gifts were lavish enough. Then Christmas dinner at some hot and overcrowded casino buffet. After the meal, all my relatives head to the blackjack tables or video poker, and I head home with treats for all the dogs and cats. Is this what the Outer Darkness will be like? I'd love to have Christmas at my place, but some of my relatives are in frail health and cannot travel, so my choices are either go to them or spend Christmas alone.

I don't have much to add here, but I did listen to a podcast recently where a new member asked to be baptized in some nearby creek. The missionaries and bishop were horrified and tried mightily to talk him out of it. One of them hit on the idea of calling the stake and asking for permission, thinking that the stake would instantly forbid it and thus drop the guillotine blade on any further creek-talk. But the stake was utterly charmed by this suggestion and told them to get down to that creek pronto to baptize him. Perhaps the water may not bother you as much if you are a shaping force behind the location and style of your baptism.

Hi lonetree, I had a similar experience during my investigation period, which began several decades ago and in many senses continues right up through today, 18 years after my baptism. Two anti-LDS persons had written something critical about the Church. They mentioned Journal of Discourses, Volume VII, page 289, which I was able to find today after a wee bit o' digging: "...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith... every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport into their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are..." And one assumes that this entrance doesn't have Global Entry. In any case, those words kept me out of the Church for a long time. But that was in an era when things couldn't be checked or explored online at the speed of light. Many years later I read this on the Wikipedia article about the Journal of Discourses: "It [the Journal of Discourses] included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine." All which seems to support my former fiancée's summary of the 19th century in Utah: "Young should have been muzzled."

I know many people (some of whom are my relatives) who live in poverty but did not choose to be poor, nor do they continue to choose to be poor. They made unwise choices when they were young, sometimes with limited information. Our current government and welfare state often do not insulate people from the consequences of their bad decisions, so it's easy to do.

I think any merchandise with six-figure price tags would carry the ability to influence the fates of those holding it.

Interesting topic, so I checked. I've never tried to read the Ten Commandments in other languages. Russian uses the plain imperative everywhere. French uses a mixture of the imperative ("Souviens-toi du jour du sabbat") and the future ("Tu ne tueras point"), but I'm guessing that has imperative overtones. Luther's translation into German uses a mixture of the imperative and the verbs sollen and nicht dürfen, which are usually translated into English as "should" and "must not." Thanks to Wikipedia, it was easy to find the Ten Commandments in Esperanto, and that awful language uses the imperative everywhere, often in words that made me laugh out loud (e.g., "Ne malbonuzu la nomon de la Eternulo"). My Hebrew is far too rusty to check the original, sadly, but from what I see so far these are all taken as imperatives. Hard to spin these as promises, IMHO. But intra's question is fascinating and reminds me of Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"). Regardless of one's interpretation of this verse, many scholars seem to take this as simple cause and effect, with the cause on earth and the effect in heaven. But I have read some scholars who interpret this in reverse: that the decision to bind or loose is made first in heaven, and that the earthly church's actions are only echoes of those heavenly decisions.

Yes indeed, a meteorologist friend of mine was just talking to me about lake-effect snow and its dangers, which are great this year because of the (ahem) polar vortex. He said the snow kills a lot of people. They start driving and pretty soon they're buried in several feet of snow. Some drivers then keep the car running to stay warm, but they don't keep the exhaust pipe clear, and... well, terrible things happen. Be careful if you hunt snow in Buffalo.

During my investigator years and then later in my wilderness years, I read a lot of ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon material. I didn't seek it out exclusively, I just naturally tend to understand the center by studying the extremes. After reading this material, I usually walked away with the same feeling I have now when I change my cat's litter box: stench and waste and a need to wash my hands pronto. Those are harsh words, and I don't enjoy writing them, but I'm describing my true reaction. In those anti-Mormon things I found very little constructive engagement or willingness to debate honorably... just a lot of hurt, angry people who thought they could get better if they focused all their pain and anger on the Church on whatever wavelength they could dial up. Maybe not all of them, but the majority. And just as a child learns very quickly what buttons to push to retaliate against a parent, many in the anti-Mormon community have learned what buttons to push to capsize faithful Mormons. That old "Mormonism isn't Christian" button has been pushed so many times that it's ready to break off. My college religion professor (a Calvinist) said he regarded as Christian any group that identified itself as Christian and believed it was sincerely following Christ. I think he got it about right. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16), and "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:50).

That's certainly been my experience. In government and public schools I do think it's wrong to present Christianity as special or superior to other religions, but if all religions are being discussed or presented fairly then it's just as wrong to fling a cloak of invisibility over Christianity just because some people aren't Christian.

Why do you say it's wrong? I don't think it is. Mangers for Christmas are good. Certainly better than jack-o-lanterns. Now, it is true that some people might be offended by a manger on your cutesy December 25 card even though the cards for other religious holidays have religious pictures. Maybe that's because some people are angry that Christmas is a U.S. holiday and no other religious holiday is. Their way of processing this anger is to find some other way to diminish Christmas and put it in its place, darn it, even if it's a double standard of the type you describe. If your calendar were limited to federal holidays, the wreath might be better. If other religious holidays are strutting their stuff on your calendar, then I don't see any manger danger.

Clean slates are nice. I wipe mine all the time. As a convert, I have occasionally been tempted to think I have more skin in the LDS game (to put it crudely) because I consciously chose to join the church and didn't just grow up in it without an explicit decision to join. I certainly understand the desire to "own" your membership in a church by consciously choosing it instead of having it pressed upon you. But I can't help wonder if there isn't an easier way to clean your slate? Best wishes whatever you decide, of course.

Very nice, but one correction: It's not my joke. IIRC, it came from one of Martin Gardner's "Mathematical Games" columns in Scientific American. I actually remember where I was when I read it because I was in a campus library and burst out into nonstop laughter. A nearby librarian gave me the evil eye, which made me laugh all the harder. I'm sure I laughed so hard because of one of my high school teachers. She taught a course called "The American Indian" and was the laziest and most ineffective teacher I've ever known. (Proof of this claim is easily shown, because after I finished the final exam I tried to think of just one new thing I had learned in the class and could not.) Anyway, she was notorious for exams that contained only one problem: "Make up a good question about X and answer it," where X was some vast topic, often unrelated to native Americans, that students could drill into from zillions of angles. My friends and I would compare our test grades later, and we concluded that any answer in the English language got an A. I'd be happy to forward your objections to Mr. Gardner, but (if I understand another thread correctly) he's in spirit prison.

I'm afraid you are right. I come from a family with deaf members, and it's my understanding (I am not deaf) that there is a mild form of discrimination even among deaf people. Adults who were born hearing but then lost their hearing later in life are on the lowest rung. The next rung contains people who were born deaf in families with mostly hearing siblings and parents. The top rung is the so-called "double-D" deaf (referring to the sign language gesture), or people born deaf to parents who themselves were born deaf. At least this is what my sign language teachers have told me, maybe someone can comment further or correct me. I doubt whether this leads to job discrimination or hate crimes, but if it's true then it's just one more chunk of evidence that humans have this goofy instinct to divide the world into us vs. them, even if the divisions are downright ludicrous. My extended family is an icy mixture of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Jews. They have organized themselves into little clans based on religion and openly discriminate against each other. As a result, I have come to really dislike people who discriminate... one could say, I suppose, that I discriminate against people who discriminate.

Yes, here you are. Welcome, and dive right in, the water's fine.