char713

My MIL has NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) and tells anyone who will listen that one of her biggest accomplishments is having taken down so many of her superiors in their careers. 
 
Other than completely avoiding them, which is the best advice but of course not usually possible to follow completely.. the other best thing to do is avoid giving them information. Whether the information is about you or others, just try to communicate the minimum that is required for workplace interaction. This includes even the most basic conversational stuff, like what you had for lunch and what your plans are for the weekend. Information is where they draw their power from, they will hate you and try to manipulate it out of you in increasingly shocking ways, but stand your ground. 

....or saying "Love won today".
 
The White House was lit up in rainbow colors afterwards.  SMH

Perhaps we can change the title of the thread to "Last gay marriage thread EVAH!" 
 
Right?
 
Right?
 

 
In seriousness (and I don't have time for much observation now):
 
1.  If one assumes that gay marriage was inevitable, Kennedy's opinion actually could have been much worse.  This is not the opinion that any of the four reliable left-wing justices would have written.
2.  Scalia's dissent is a riot.  Seriously--read  the whole thing.
3.  Thomas' makes some very thoughtful points about how the government is not the grantor of an individual's dignity.  It's an important political theory to remember, regardless of one's opinions on gay marriage itself.
4.  Pro-gay-marriage law professor Ann Althouse has a poll about the opinion on her website.  She currently has 1408 respondents in favor of gay marriage; but a whopping 994 of those gay marriage supporters concede that the opinion itself is very poorly written from a constitutional law perspective.

And Nero fiddled while Rome...er, America burned. No surprise really....just a bit closer to the retun of the Savior.
 
Sidenote: How can u not love Scalia...
 
"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Reading some of these responses, would it be fair to say any distancing on part of the one who left is indeed "nothing personal, I just need to sort out a few things"?

Its not dead if you can still use it to pass college exam test questions - which I did in almost every class I ever took. I hated that my mother forced me to take it for all four years of high school, but I am ever so thankful now. 

I think I'm probably just beginner level, but I can read some latin. Which kind do you need to translate, classical or ecclesiastical?

This is great, thanks for sharing. 
 
I know you know what I might add to the part about procreation. That some Laurels might already know that they may never have children. A lot of women I know received their diagnosis in their teens. That in no way diminishes their worth either, and makes no difference to the law of chastity for them. Wives will (hopefully) experience that kind of marital intimacy for many more reasons and on many more occassions than just for the sake of conception.   

The whole time that I was inactive I distanced myself from people just to maintain privacy and sanity. I knew, or at least I assumed, that if they got wind of my non-attendance that they would never give me a moment's peace about it, and that we wouldn't have a normal conversation or exchange of any kind that wouldn't be "tainted" for them by that knowledge. It was and is a private struggle, and I saw no reason to make it harder on myself by being that honest with people who just didn't need to know. 
 
My old seminary teacher and his wife (and four kids) left the church three or four years ago. He was in the Bishopric of his ward at the time, and had been the main release time seminary teacher for half our stake in Colorado for several years. They sent a letter out to people in the stake, mostly asking to be treated normally but also passive-aggressively attempting to shame those who had already said something unkind or changed in their attitudes toward their family. They even met with one of the Apostles, shortly after they resigned, who apparently asked them to reconsider. But they have made a huge nose-dive since then, did an interview with John Dehlin, are since divorced... but oddly enough both of them have since moved to Utah. They have cut ties with almost everyone, though on facebook it looks as if they are extra-chummy with all the former seminary students of his who left the church in high school or shortly thereafter. 

From what I can gather on Wikipedia, the last non-college-educated apostles were George Q. Morris (called 1954) and LeGrand Richards (called 1952)
 
It's worth noting that the early apostles of Jesus' day, contrary to popular belief, may not have been quite the impoverished country bumpkins they have been made out to be.  Peter and Andrew's family were sufficiently well-to-do that they owned a fleet of fishing boats, and as I understand it Galilean fish were exported as far away as Rome (the remains of Peter's house in Capernaum still exist; and he had probably relocated there from Bethsaida for tax reasons).  Matthew, of course, was a tax collector--suggesting both literacy and some skill with mathematics--and James son of Alphaeus may have been his brother.  If I remember correctly, scholars have suggested that James and John's mother was one of a cadre of independently wealthy women who provided crucial financial support to the early church and its leaders.  Later prominent church leaders included Luke (a physician) and Paul (to all intents and purposes, a doctor of Jewish law).

It seems I cannot respond to a gospel-centered discussion without quoting this fellow. 
 
"If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different; a society because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of God. For doubtless the continually successful, yet never complete, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created." C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Um, yes. That sounds a lot like me. I have had several ideas or questions over the past few weeks that I have considered posting here. I got very close to actually posting three of them, but I copied+pasted what I had written into a document on my desktop instead. One of those questions I actually sent in an email to my grandfather, since I really do need a response to that one. It will take longer to hear back from him than it would if I had just posted about the subject here.. but frankly it was and is just too intimidating to open myself up that much with some of the visitors to this forum. I am not nearly as well-versed in the scriptures or the teachings of former Prophets as I ought to be, but I don't care to have that drawn out as a fault, or have my earnest questions stomped on by those who are on a higher spiritual/intellectual plane than myself.
 
I do not mean that I am not actually wanting to hear those quotes and scriptures - on the contrary they are exactly what I am hoping to receive - the part that concerns me is the tone in which they are delivered. Sometimes it can be very pleasant and informative. But other times you just feel trampled on by a herd of larger and more robust creatures who, when they notice your squashed and worn state, tell you to buck up and adjust your attitude. My grandfather will answer my question at his own slow-typist pace, but I know he will do so with as much wisdom and knowledge AND as much gentleness and patience as the Savior might Himself. 

Um, yes. That sounds a lot like me. I have had several ideas or questions over the past few weeks that I have considered posting here. I got very close to actually posting three of them, but I copied+pasted what I had written into a document on my desktop instead. One of those questions I actually sent in an email to my grandfather, since I really do need a response to that one. It will take longer to hear back from him than it would if I had just posted about the subject here.. but frankly it was and is just too intimidating to open myself up that much with some of the visitors to this forum. I am not nearly as well-versed in the scriptures or the teachings of former Prophets as I ought to be, but I don't care to have that drawn out as a fault, or have my earnest questions stomped on by those who are on a higher spiritual/intellectual plane than myself.
 
I do not mean that I am not actually wanting to hear those quotes and scriptures - on the contrary they are exactly what I am hoping to receive - the part that concerns me is the tone in which they are delivered. Sometimes it can be very pleasant and informative. But other times you just feel trampled on by a herd of larger and more robust creatures who, when they notice your squashed and worn state, tell you to buck up and adjust your attitude. My grandfather will answer my question at his own slow-typist pace, but I know he will do so with as much wisdom and knowledge AND as much gentleness and patience as the Savior might Himself. 

I almost did a 'like' on one of you comments the other day.  Then I thought...'why start now'.
 
You are a highly intellegent person. You have a great insight into the gospel and the Church. You have a fantatic talent in recalling scripture and history. As I have said in the past, I don't disagree with you on your doctrinal view. I appreciate that you such a strong member of the Church. If I were a leader, I would probably call someone like you as a counselor just to balance me out.
 
I have a complete dislike for the attitude in which you choose to teach us. If I knew you, I'd give Mrs. TFP a metal.

It isn't the points of the arugument that are bullying. It is the unrelentless talking down to people to frustrate them to the point of abondoning the argument. I almost never even read the comments of a half dozen posters to this forum. TFP opened himself up because he 'sought' some understanding as to why we are not united. I am obliging with my 'opinion'. 
 
You, Traveler, are one of the top offenders, so I don't expect you to understand.
 
It is interesting to compare this forum to others. There is far more activity on other forums. There are hundreds of posts per day and thousands of responses. This forum can go a day or two without a new topic posted. I curious as to why. There is a lot of heated discussion on the other forums but perhaps for some reason people don't feel villified there. Just an observation.

Vort, on 09 Jun 2015 - 1:39 PM, said:
So we agree ....I agree the purpose that home teaching fulfills is the doctrine. I cannot call home teaching doctrinal, because if the program did not exist we should still be fulfilling our duty as outline in D&C 

It isn't that we don't know or believe the doctrine. The disagreements in the forum are more about to what level of exactness are we expected to carry them out (i.e. perfection). You, and a obvious handful of others, bully people on points where you expect perfection in an answer. You accept nothing but complete surrender that we are all failures because we are not perfect. If only we were more obedient, if only we were more in line.  As I stated earlier, you leave no room for the human experience - the fact that we were born into imperfection and will all likely die in imperfection.
 
I know I worded this harshly; especially to use the word 'bully'. And I know the respose is "show me where I...", but I don't live on this forum, nor do I wish to live for this forum, so no, I will not go searching your history to prove the point. I think others (those of us shouted down) will understand what I am saying.

Maybe that was my bad, I probably need to do some more studying on the subject. It was my opinionated view that HT is a policy or practice, but not doctrine. Important yes, but not something without which the church would cease to be true. That's kind of the ruler by which I have judged, in my own opinion, which things matter the most and which are most important to take myself or someone else to task for.
 
My husband and I have not had home teachers - have not been home-taught in 6 years. We have been married for 8 years, and have been visited once by anyone besides the Bishopric (on Shepherding Night only.) I took this up on a thread when I first joined this forum. But I have since just learned to just deal with it and also support my husband in his HT efforts no matter what else goes on. If it were a doctrinal issue however, as serious of an issue as tithing monies being misused or someone teaching from disapproved materials at church, then I wouldn't let it rest.

Why don't you answer omega's question and get into it with him and then your should gain some perspective on why I'm responding the way I am. At it's core, I don't disagree with you. But there are those who would use strict definitions of such things to downplay the importance of certain ideas.
 
My point -- does it matter if (for example) home teaching is "doctrine" or not?

Well, for example:  You know that idea about the Holy Ghost being a "burning in the bosom"?  That's not how I experience it.  I've never felt it that way.  And because it's not part of my gospel experience, it's not how I personally describe the influence of the Holy Ghost.

I seldom find disagreement on your interpretation of doctrine. What I find offensive in many of your posts is a complete disregard for the human experience. Your often flippant responses equate to "if you were more godlike, you wouldn't have a problem". Well yes, if we were more godlike we wouldn't have a problem.
 
You seem to completely ignore that we (those of us on Earth) are in a period of growth; many different stages of growth. Some of us are never going to "get it" while during our Earthly stay.
 
I think we are at one heart and mind when the Spirit wishes it to be so. But short of a Pentecostal awakening, we're not all going to have that same level of experience at the same time, even when reading the same doctrine, or hearing the same talk, or saying the same prayer, simply because we have human filters that block or interpret the Spirit. Some of those are even physiological.
 
Your frustration with us being frustrated with you is a matter of you thinking we are lacking. Yes we are, but you could allow people to be wrong and not feel we are lacking for not having the same full understanding as you.  Who knows, maybe someday you will see things the way we do. :)

I wonder if perhaps the most difficult hurtle in unity is in the realization and appreciation for someone that has something unique and different to bring to the table.  I am impressed that unity is about inclusion; not exclusion.

I do not believe that we are meant to be completely united in the sense that we think alike and agree on everything.. or indeed very much of anything besides what are absolute truths. I don't think were are meant to be always without disputation or discussion. Without contention and enmity, of course, but I think we will always disagree on some more "minor" points of doctrine, especially the ones that depend so much on individual experiences in order to be fully understood. 

It seems I cannot respond to a gospel-centered discussion without quoting this fellow. 
 
"If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different; a society because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of God. For doubtless the continually successful, yet never complete, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created." C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

It seems I cannot respond to a gospel-centered discussion without quoting this fellow. 
 
"If all experienced God in the same way and returned Him an identical worship, the song of the church triumphant would have no symphony, it would be like an orchestra in which all the instruments played the same note. Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different; a society because each has something to tell all the others--fresh and ever fresh news of God. For doubtless the continually successful, yet never complete, attempt by each soul to communicate its unique vision to all others (and that by means whereof earthly art and philosophy are but clumsy imitations) is also among the ends for which the individual was created." C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain