zil

Apparently an over-abundance of adverbs is this woman's way of avoiding the much more difficult, "show, don't tell" - it's much more difficult (to teach someone how) to show emotion than to use an adverb. "When you catch an adjective, kill it." - Mark Twain. Maybe they should read 1984 - that'll help them figure out new ways to say things... PC: Sorry, but when "good" or "said" is the right word, replacing it isn't sophisticated or colorful, it's just bad.

yjacket, Was Christ illogical, or was he rude? (This is my primary point. It's not about gender, as if it were unnatural for one and natural for the other, it's about time and effort.) IMO, your most-recent post made your point without being either, thus further proving it can be done by any gender. That said, some of what I've seen in this thread was not (just) blunt, not misunderstood (it was painfully clear), and not even logical (rude is never logical, and there was clear emotion behind the tone of the posts I'm thinking of), but rude. Politeness, courtesy, and/or civility would have motivated the poster to take the extra time and make the extra effort to word their post politely, courteously, and/or civilly, without lacking in any logic, and without having to alter their opinion. Meanwhile, I recommend you look into the latest science on the brain.

And while not well publicized, there are hormone imbalances which cause a woman to lose her sex drive - as long as you're considering medical options, doesn't hurt to ask about this.

Mostly the couch. Before long, the trudgemill (I call him Tready, cuz I tread on him - clever, eh?). :-) Then back to the couch.

And I'm rejecting the generalization (which is not precisely the same as saying it doesn't accurately describe a generality - for all I know, I've never experienced generality).

I just don't believe the difference is based on chromosomes. (And I do believe claiming it is gender-based is a thinly veiled excuse for something that is nothing more or less than a choice made.)

2. You aren't the first person to think the forbidden fruit was the sweet one and the fruit of the tree of life bitter. The sentence structures certainly make it seem that way. Metaphoric or physical + metaphoric (it couldn't be only physical), either can make use of the terms bitter and sweet. What follows is utter speculation. Add lots of "to me"s in there. Regarding #4: It seems pretty clear that they were not fully mortal in the garden. In all probability, they were something like translated. It seems probable that in that state, whatever it was, they couldn't procreate.* The way scriptures describe translation, it seems like a sort of temporary not-quite-resurrection (you won't get sick, won't die, won't have physical pain - but it's not permanent), and we know that procreation between resurrected, exalted beings will produce spirit children, not mortal children. We also know that not all resurrected beings will be capable of procreation. So, it's reasonable to assume that in a translated state, one can't do either - the body perhaps cannot be used to create mortal children - it not being fully mortal at that stage - the whole is not yet exalted to a state which can produce spirit children - therefore, no procreation. *I personally have no problem believing either way: that Adam and Eve didn't have sex / know about sex; or that they did, but it would not produce children. I think arguments could be made for either. I also think it's utterly irrelevant and none of our business. :)

That has nothing to do with men vs. women. It is entirely one individual to the next. I know plenty of men who could have gotten the same ideas across as other men in this thread, and done so with far more courtesy. And I know women who can be just as rude blunt.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (I contend each of us are as well, but that's another story). But God also does the appropriate thing for the given situation (as in "Thou shalt not kill" vs. (paraphrasing) "slaughter them all, even the babies and the animals", vs "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill... But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."). Did God change? Those don't all sound compatible. How about "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." (D&C 64:10) vs "But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him" (D&C 98:44)? Change? The notion that we understand more than a fraction of a fraction (of a fraction?) is arrogance and ignorance in the extreme. While God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and His course is one eternal round, the same cannot be said of us. He is giving us line upon line, precept upon precept, and as we learn, the old is often "changed" into something better. ("Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - in other words, we cannot even begin to imagine what's coming, so it shouldn't be hard to believe that some changes between here and there will be ones we now cannot imagine.) We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. IMO, hypotheticals like this are a waste of time, but if you're gonna ponder possibilities, ponder whether the hypothetical change would alter what exists, restrict it, expand it, eliminate it, replace it, invalidate it - and don't settle for just one of those, or the easy answer, expand the answer as far as you can. Take the Law of Moses - done away? discontinued? replaced? elevated? expanded? restricted? The whole thing? Most of it? None of it? It is not a simple "all gone forever" scenario. How about the ten commandments vs the sermon on the mount? What changed? How did it change? The better thing is to bag the hypothetical, learn and live the gospel, and follow the prophet - here and now. Then, when He reveals another great and important thing, you'll be as prepared for it as you can be. Just because you can't understand how a law might be expanded without breaking the law, doesn't mean it can't be.

You would not be the first person to be in a marriage where one person does all the work and the other person only wants to participate in the fun (and they get to decide what "fun" is). I agree with those who recommend counseling.

I recommend checking out the following (there's a boatload, just pick the things you think are most relevant): https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng The Church's Resource page FWIW.

One of the keys to understanding scripture is the footnotes. I would never try to understand the Revelation of John without checking the footnotes (for the JST version specifically, and links which might aid in understanding). I'm kinda surprised no one in your class spotted the JST footnote - looking is a habit with me. I also frequently use the institute manuals (I love the Gospel Library, which lets me take these and more everywhere). I'll now speculate and say that horns could be symbolic of a warning voice (horns sounded before / in battle way back in the day) or of power (animal horns for fighting / protection) and that eyes are both observation and light. And, here's what the manual says: John described the Lamb in his vision as having many horns and eyes. In the scriptures, horns are often a symbol of power (see 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 75:10). Eyes often symbolize light and knowledge (see D&C 77:4). The Joseph Smith Translation of Revelation 5:6 indicates that the Lamb had “twelve horns and twelve eyes, which are the twelve servants of God” (in Revelation 5:6, footnote b). Since the Lord’s people in ancient Israel were numbered as twelve tribes and the Lord organized His Church with Twelve Apostles, the number twelve can symbolize divine government and organization, or the priesthood. This verse may suggest that all priesthood power and knowledge is centered in the Lamb of God. FWIW.

I worry less about the scientific vs. colloquial meaning of "addiction", and more what the Gospel teaches (looking at scantily-clad women is clearly not in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ, on multiple levels). The church has resources to help. This video also rings true to me. Even if it isn't, the thing it promotes (positive human connections) is a worthy goal in any circumstance. Whatever the science, whether you want to call it addiction or habit or hobby, the simple fact is that sometimes we do bad things, and these bad things push out better things, making life worse (even if the person "enjoying" the bad things doesn't think there's anything wrong). Whether it's a scientific / medical / chemical -type addiction, or just a habit-forming behavior*, I believe MormonMama is right to be concerned, and the behavior she describes (not unintentionally seeing ads on a legitimate site, but deliberately going to sites whose sole purpose is to display scantily-clad women) is not in harmony with Gospel teachings. *For the record, I think every behavior, repeated often enough for a long enough time, is habit-forming; it's just a question of whether it's a good habit or a bad habit. (Experiential science according to Zil - worth every penny you paid for it.)

PS: what he is doing is addictive. Addiction always escalates (it's the nature of addiction, one needs more to get the same reaction). Don't ignore it.

You know your husband best and how to approach this, but I would invite scripture into the discussion. Such as Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ...or D&C 42:22 Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. ...and perhaps talk about how you made covenants in the temple, and that these aren't "all you have to do" (so that one might excuse themselves based on the letter of the law), they're beginning steps to help prepare you for the even higher laws of the celestial kingdom, where you want to go together, with the child you're having... And I would invite him to go together to talk to the bishop.

It's not surprising at all - at least, not in my life, where I've worked with a mix of men and women for decades. Men are just as likely to gossip as women. The stereotype that women are the ones with a gossiping problem is utter nonsense.

Well, that's extremely depressing and discouraging. The things the youth in that article were taught, are not what I was taught. I know they are not the things one of my brothers believes (never discussed it with the other brother), though I don't know what he was taught in priesthood classes - I wasn't there, after all. (NOTE: When we were youth, we were in extremely low-density Zion - far from Utah.) Clearly a lot of people in the church have a long way to go to get their heads on straight about these things. (I still don't think Pres. Kimball was blaming the victim, but maybe my interpretation is skewed because I was never taught the things people in that article were taught.)

I assume it's the last sentence that you struggle with? I note that President Kimball doesn't define what "a struggle" is. Is it calling for help? Is it pleading for one's attacker not to do what they're about to do / doing? Is it taking reasonable measures to avoid situations where attack is probable? Is it an attempt at bargaining ("take my jewelry, just don't hurt me")? Is it a physical struggle - to what extent? Is it something in between? President Kimball did not write: "It's better to fight to the death against a rapist than to do otherwise." And he could have written that, had he chosen. I don't know his mind or what he meant beyond a literal interpretation that it is better to die fighting than not to struggle at all - which I agree with - not struggling in any meaning of the word almost negates the idea that it was rape. I do know that there are many different ways in which women view (the possibility of) rape and what one should do if attacked. And in my opinion, no one but the victim herself (well, and the Lord) gets to decide whether she chose the right response. If a woman fights to the death rather than be raped, that's her right and I refuse to find fault - indeed, I see no fault. If a woman pleads for her life, or tries to bargain her way out of it, or calls for help, I find no fault with her choice. No matter what else is true, if she survives it, recovery will be a serious challenge. (After seeing your reply to MrShorty: I do not believe President Kimball intended your response. "There is no condemnation when there is no voluntary participation." You have said there was no voluntary participation. Therefore, you are under no condemnation. Perhaps the suggestion to read the book was to help you understand healing through the Atonement, forgiveness of your abuser(s), or the concept of restitution - you don't need to repent, your attacker cannot restore what was taken, yet something was taken, and the Atonement is needed to recover from that.) PS: Nowhere, IMO, does President Kimball call a rape victim a sinner. I believe "more favorable position" is not in relation to sin or repentance, but in relation to recovery.

If you want to stick strictly to your calling / stewardship, the only thing I can think of is one of those activities where people are required to get to know each other (and don't know beforehand that the activity will group them at random, so if they show up, they're getting to know strangers - unless they leave). Offense or tension can be solved simply by the two parties spending time together doing something unrelated. (This could be a "get to know you", "multiple teams", or "multiple groups giving service" type activity - so so long as people are randomly grouped and each group must work together.) If you want to confront the gossipers but aren't sure how, you could stop and invite the group of gossipers to come to class. ("Hey, everyone, will you come sit by me in Sunday School?" I mean, unless you're on your way to perform some urgent service, you need to be in class.) Or briefly invite them to improve. ("I know you're upset, but this isn't how the Lord wants us to handle our trials. Please come to class and maybe after, we can find a way to forgive.") If you don't want to address it directly, it seems like leadership need to know (bishop, RS pres, EQ pres) - the bishop seems like the one with the most proper stewardship in this area. Perhaps it's time for a scripture-based talk - given by a couple of the ones doing the gossiping: D&C 38:27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine. 3 Nephi 11:29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. D&C 64:10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. ...when I was a kid, nothing stopped bad behavior faster than a quick scripture read - my parents would sit us down sometimes, open the scriptures*, read a verse, and then tell us we could go (I don't even remember them explaining why they'd done it - they never needed to). (*I think seeing physical scriptures open made it more effective than had they just quoted it.) Or perhaps you should print different scriptures on those "print-them-yourself" business cards and hand them out as you walk down the hall. There was a good MormonAd about gossip - maybe get / make some cards of it and hand those out. (I know, it all takes guts, but there's no way to solve a behavior problem without dealing directly with the person doing the behaving.) FWIW.

That's because I was overly verbose: Great and Abominable Church (which is a lot to type).

If the point of this thread is this quote from the end of the OP: "As I said, I'm genuinely worried about my status and the status of all members of the Church." (and I'm assuming that's a sincere, caring, "I want to help" concern for other members), then I think we've gone far astray, and I, for one, would prefer we return. If that wasn't the point, and percentages, acreage, and determination of who's in and who's out were the point, then nevermind the below, and let me know so I can bow out... A) You cannot be serious. Brigham Young once stated (or so it's claimed) that the "earth reeling to and fro as a drunken man" would be caused by the return of all the bits which have been taken away (Eden, the city of Enoch, etc.) and that by the time it's done, this earth would be 10 times its current size. I don't really care one way or another whether that's true in whole, part, or none. What I am 100% sure of is that the current dimensions of this planet will have NOTHING to do with the number of people who make it into the celestial kingdom ("Sorry, no room for you, try the previous kingdom." or "Ah, six acres instead of five, hallelujah!"). As if the Lord couldn't make this planet as big or small as He wanted at any time He wanted! Further, if the above were rational, where, pray tell, would all the billions of spirit children of those people who do make it, live? Or will the celestial kingdom be like a vacation home, and each couple will have their own "nigh to Kolob" -type planet where all the kiddies reside? Or do celestial couples only get 5-acres' worth of children? ("Mom, he's touching me!") B) Why in the world are you so concerned with how many people there will / will not (might / might not) be in the celestial kingdom? Or am I totally misunderstanding something? Or if you aren't, why so many speculative quotes and comments about it? This and some of your other comments sound to me like passing final judgements on others (sorry, but to me they do). For example: When I hear that statement ("I can't be perfect*, so God will understand when I make mistakes." (*"in mortality" assumed)), barring further context, I hear a simple statement of fact. It does not not "concern me" and I don't feel the need to add a caveat ('...if those "mistakes" are not the product of...'). God understood before we ever made any mistakes, hence the plan of salvation, hence our Savior. (PS: even if those are honest mistakes, we still need the plan and the Savior, thus making the caveat irrelevant.) And even if you're not making judgements, and these people weren't sincere, what good will come from these lines of discussion? It's not like we can actually figure out the answers ("Oops, you didn't carry the 2 there, it's actually 4.97 acres."). Surely there's something better to be had, either on the topic of the celestial kingdom, or on the topic of avoiding membership in the great and abominable church (hereinafter GandAC, not to be confused with Gandalf). Things I concern myself with when I think of the celestial kingdom are generally: 1) How do I get myself there? (not whether there will be room for me, not how many others might show up) 2) How can I help others get themselves there? (not whether they deserve to be there, not whether they're making their best effort - as if I could see into their heart and make such a determination!) (PS: go homonyms!) 3) Though I know it will be right and required, I so do not want to stand before the bar of God and testify of anyone else's sins. Instead, I want to beg the Lord for mercy on their behalf. I know full well that the Lord's judgements will be just, and that each of us will end up in the proper kingdom for us, and that we will be happier there than any other place, even a higher kingdom, because it will be the place we each have chosen to be. Nonetheless, the thought of having to testify against another, even my enemies, fills my heart with sadness, and I long for them to be as blessed as possible. Surely discussing things such as these (which seem closer to the first OP quote I started with) would be more rewarding than trying to calculate celestial acreage or GandAC membership numbers? (Sorry for the length. I tried to make it shorter and failed.)

After reading thread title: My word for 2016 is the same as my word for 2015: "year". After reading initial post: Oops. Nevermind. Carry on.

Warnings are good. Encouragement is better. Speculations on how many might "make it" are pointless - you can't scare people into worthiness - though you can scare them to the point of discouragement. The good news is that Jesus Christ will judge 100%. And it is my assertion (not just belief) that the direction in which we are traveling will matter more than how far along the path we are. Think of the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. Consider the new convert struggling to progress. Some time back, in some conversation (have forgotten all details other than these), the topic of the Second Coming came up. Like most of us, I feel entirely unprepared for that event. Unlike some, I long for the day, despite those feelings. As I later pondered this, I came to this decision: if I am not burnt to a cinder at the start, I will move toward Christ in that event, no matter how painful doing so is with a full knowledge of all my sins. I will not hide, no matter how much I want to. Whatever His judgement is in that day, so be it, but I won't make myself (more) unworthy by hiding from the only One who has any chance of redeeming me.

OK, but for the record, one doesn't have to be on the verge of getting married or going on a mission to receive their own endowments. An adult member who is worthy can receive their endowments, even if single, no spouse or mission in sight. I did. The rest of that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Maybe the title of this thread should have been "Bad Joke"... :)