zil

The phrasing of this question is important, and a good answer requires letting the knee-jerk reaction come and go. Competitiveness - not only does it result in pride, it stems from pride. Can a person participate in sports without being competitive in their heart? (I don't know, you'll have to ask someone who competes in sports.) But I think someone can play games which require a winner and do so without being competitive. I think that because I love to play board games, not to win, but for the pleasure of spending time with friends or family (unfortunately, I know very few people who like to play board games). The slight exception to that is slap-match-Uno, which I like for that reason and because it has me laughing the whole time - pretty sure a game of that is as good for your abs as 100 sit-ups. I don't feel competitive when I'm playing these games - often, I don't even put much thought into strategy - I'm just there to play (and talk, and laugh). But I confess to liking it when I win - of course, I also like it when someone who's tried hard wins... I could also be guilty of thinking too highly of my own motives... So then the question becomes, can one participate in activities which require a winner without being competitive? Can one be pleased by the activity, without being prideful about who wins? It might be possible (maybe, not sure), but if it is, it would be awfully hard. Opposition, on the other hand, probably needs some parameters. We know there must needs be opposition in all things. Opposition to evil is a good thing. Is not humility opposition to pride? Now, if you're talking about opposition as in "being contrary" or arguing or fighting, then yes, where else can that come from except pride? And giving in to it will either increase your pride, or humble you by force. Interesting question.

If that's really what he's trying to say, then to continue this thread is pointless and all but the insane should abandon it.

It says lies are of that wicket one who was a liar from the beginning. See below for what your posts _seem_ to be saying. IMO, D&C 93:24-25 are defining truth, not the possession or understanding of truth. Just because I only have a mortal portion of truth, does not mean it's not truth - were that the case, everything the church teaches would not be truth, because they don't teach everything there is to know (that being impossible for mortals, and contrary to the concept of learning - if it could all be dumped in at once, there would be no learning, just a switch flipping). But the church teaches truth - despite not knowing all of it - we only know the portion the Lord has chosen to make generally known right now. He never said that. So unless I'm omniscient, I've never received revelation from the Holy Ghost? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying in recent posts - unless you're omniscient, whatever you know is not the truth - if you know a portion of the truth, you don't have the truth, because it's less than "all". Now it seems highly improbable that this is what you mean to say, but it's important for you to know that this is what it _seems_ like you're saying - so that you can think of new phrasing to get across whatever it is you really mean to say. ...um, except by him who was a liar from the beginning... And how could he be a liar if everyone knows everything (omniscience) already? The power of a lie is in the deception, but one cannot be deceived if one knows the truth. They chose knowing full well they'd be miserable? I doubt it. God didn't have to withhold anything from them give them all knowledge for them to make an informed choice - omniscience was not required to make an informed choice - but I am certain they had sufficient knowledge to make the choice they made. (I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with that, which is fine by me.) Further, if we were omniscient, we would have been by definition omnipotent, so why would we have needed God? What was stopping us from mortalizing and immortalizing ourselves? (Again, trying to point out that this is what it sounds like you're saying, and it doesn't make sense, so I'm hoping it's not what you mean to be saying.) So no mortal has free will (agency)? Because no mortal has "full light of truth" - we're learning it line upon line, precept upon precept - in other words in parts at a time.

I begin to wonder if we haven't entered the Twilight Zone...

Choosing to be humble (and yes, this requires great humility) brings power into your life.

Don't you mean your 6 wedding rings?

IMO, if that language is meant to be a direct copy of a text written in 1739, I've got serious doubts. That language does not read like 1739 to me. That what is described is what happened is irrelevant - someone could easily have made all that up after the fact, and that's how it reads to me. (Fortunately, I don't need the quote to be true or false to know the truth.) PS: If it was published publicly in 1739, there's a fair chance that Catholic priest would have been excommunicated (at best).

So I went looking for a source on that, to read the entire thing, and the best I found was: "In a quote loosely associated to Ezra Taft Benson, he is remarked to have said..." (FYI, for others who like to know the source and context of quotes.)

Boy are you ever! Welcome back!

Sounds like it's long past time, and like you're living on another planet (than the one I'm living on). Seriously, spells and curses? (I'm not saying I doubt you, I'm saying it's time to run for your life...) I'm not at all surprised by sad and desperate (and would err on the side of support for such emotions), but spells and curses are long past sad and desperate.

She might be crazy, but hey, she'll be your crazy...

My brother and I think the entire world should just use UTC time and get over the whole timezone thing.

IMO, same-day primaries in all states would help alleviate this problem, but the parties will never let that happen.

I think _this_ might have something to do with it: I agree, but her doing it herself didn't solve the problem, cuz he would then do the passive-aggressive, "let me do that for you" when she was 3/4 done. The solution, as you say, is to be an adult: agree to responsibilities and _do_ them. When changes are needed, discuss and agree, then follow-through. It shouldn't be so hard, but for some reason, it is.

That's kinda my point. I'm wondering how Bad Karma and his wife resolved this issue, if they did.

So here's my question. Let's say there's an explicit agreement that the husband will mow the lawn. You agree to buy him a riding lawn mower so this is easier and faster. He mows the lawn for years. Then one summer, the grass is getting high enough that the mower isn't gonna do a good job, so you point this out and ask if he's gonna mow the lawn. He says "yes" and goes and mows the lawn. Over the course of weeks / months, he won't do it until you ask, then he won't do it until you ask a few times. You discuss this and he says he'll do it before the grass gets 8 inches long, don't worry, he's sorry. But he doesn't do it, even though you refrain from asking him to. You wait until the grass is 10 inches long and ask him to, "oh yeah, I forgot". The cycle starts over. Eventually, he won't do it until you start, and then he comes to your rescue when there's only 1/4 of the lawn left to do. Is she nagging? Is she justified? Should he not have told the truth, as in, "you know what, I'm sick of mowing the lawn. why don't we hire a neighbor kid to do it. or maybe you could do it - I'll show you how to use the riding mower" IMO, ANYTHING is better than continual, lying, "I'll do it"s.

"picked your battles" implies giving in to the other person's wishes without a fight (fine if that's how you want to handle it). Is that what you mean, or do you mean that you still blow her off and hope she and her problems will go away and leave you alone? Cuz that's not gonna lead to a happy place over the long run. And what is your advice to Backroads? To give up cuz her husband's never going to care about her concerns, or...? I other words, you've told us you ignore your wife because you don't care about some things, but you haven't told us how that problem might be resolved.

Um, to have the "benefits" of DST, you'd have to move your timezone east, not west. (And this is another example of why I detest DShiftyT - no one can keep time straight.)

Actually, they did tests with ultrasound, on guys... and it was the smell of cinnamon rolls which got the strongest reaction... 'nuff said (or maybe too much).

You're in the church where Brigham Young is reputed to have said that a single man over the age of 30 wasn't worth the shot it would take to blow him to hell, and you're surprised that people nearing that point are sad and desperate? You're in a church which teaches in D&C 131: 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. ...and you wonder why those with no prospects of marriage on the horizon are feeling sad and desperate? The reality is simply that single women, at least (I can't speak for single men), over the age of 30 are treated very differently (and in a negative way) than married women (regardless of age) and widows (despite singlehood), particularly by their own age group. Sometimes it's black and white, drastically different (if you really need it, I'll give you my example). In recent years, the church (through GC talks, lessons, magazine articles, and the like) has made a noticeable effort to change people's behavior and attitudes toward singles, but it'll take generations (if ever) for the changes to work their way into people's lives. That said, I've never witnessed events like you describe. I consulted with a friend, and she hasn't either. So at the very least, what you're describing isn't the norm. I couldn't say how common it may or may not be. Maybe there's something about you which triggers spontaneous public displays of overwhelming emotion...

Seriously? You've eaten a cookie made with gasoline and it was "awesome"?!

a) I can read without my glasses - it's things far away I can't see b) Seriously? - they've got all the food he would need (and it won't spoil, right), and all those books, and they don't have spare glasses lying around? (Did I mention that of all my body parts, I think my eyes are in the best shape? I must do a thousand eye-rolls a day...)

Yes. Apparently I missed that episode (not that I've seen that many).

Yes, I'm going to have to do some research and figure out what Minecraft is (something about blowing things up, maybe; or digging things out of the earth...)

In this universe, there has to be an option for prayers and miracles.