zil

At least in this case you were given a valid invalid reason (valid in that if that's the game, you may as well play to win - no point losing something important just because the game has stupid rules; invalid cuz, well, the rules are stupid). The article doesn't seem to be making this point (unlike Vort's "artificial exercise" example above somewhere).

And this is the concern for me (and I suspect anyone who is passionate about language, reading good literature, and writing): it stuck with you. While what your teacher taught was a good thing to stick with you, what that article describes is not a good thing, and if it sticks with the students, the end result will not be good.

"When one hundred fifty you are, ancient you will feel," Yoda said.

You people need to go read (more) good (better) books.

I'm not talking about porn, I'm talking about the combinations of words used in some of the posts in this thread. You seemed to be too, for a couple of posts. I think I've said enough, so I'm moving on.

1. We are spirit children of God. Thus, there can be "children" without "babies". What we don't know (remember?) are the mechanics around creating spiritual offspring. 2. Until one has become like God (omniscient), there can be growth. Thus, no matter how much we knew in eternity past (and I believe we knew an awful lot* but not all), there is room for growth until such time as we are perfect (or have reached our personal limits). My dad once explained his thoughts on why we have time and why with God "all things are present": if I explain something to you, it takes time for me to explain it and time for you to understand it - it starts in the past, is happening in the present, and won't finish until the future. God knows it before I start - it's already present. :) (My dad has lots of interesting things to ponder.) *I personally don't worry about my lack of understanding of modern theories related to physics, because (a) there are so many other things to learn, and as long as I'm learning, I don't think whether I learn physics matters, (b) mastering the Gospel is more important and thus gets priority on my time, © for all I know, I already understand the nature of the universe and how worlds are created; but I'm 100% certain I don't fully understand how to have Charity for all - so I'm more worried about that at the moment.

I disagree with the way this (from the article in the OP) is presented - ban "boring"* words and replace them with "interesting" or "colorful" words. A) We should not teach anyone to ban any speech (excepting the filthy in polite society) B) Replacement with a synonym does not teach the nuances of the words so that the right one can be used in the right place, it teaches that a word is "boring"* all the time and that other words are (more) "interesting" all the time - nonsense. I remember when "colorful" was how we described "foul" language. Not sure we want to encourage this in children. There are other ways to teach children to use a variety of words, they're just going to be a lot harder and all of them take time. How about the teacher picks a common word, listing some synonyms selected for their nuances in meaning, then constructs a sentence with the common word. First, the teacher teaches about the synonyms and their nuances. Then the teacher has the students change the sentence, once for each synonym, in a way that makes the synonym is the best word to use in that (now changed) sentence. A lot more work for everyone! A lot more effective, IMO. When I was in 9th grade, we had to write a paper (essay, short story, poem, whatever) where the first letter of the first word in the first sentence was "A", the first letter of the first word in the second sentence was "B", and so on to "Z" at least once. In addition to teaching us to think about what words we used, it taught us to use alternate sentence structures. I managed 4 times through the alphabet, less 4 letters. (Short story, set in Greece - made the X easier. :) ) It may not be much better, but it's better than simple ban and replace. *Boring is in your head, not in a word. My boss once handed out this little motivational card (before he knew us all well - he was the newbie in the group). It had clipart of a dog and said something along the lines of, "If you're never the lead dog, your view will never change." (as in, your view of the butt of the dog in front of you). He thought it would encourage us to take the lead sometimes (on projects or whatever). My very first thought, within milliseconds of reading the quote was, "If your view depends on what's in front of your eyes, you need to work on developing your imagination."

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.