zil

Hey, with just the right number of odd things, you come out even...

All humans are immortal. Therefore, our lifetime consists of eternity past through eternity future, without beginning or end. Therefore, yes, the second coming will occur within my lifetime (unless it doesn't occur at all, but that's just silly). Alternately, I think the second coming began in the early 1800s, so I think the proper question is whether it will finish in my lifetime. For the answer to that, see above and below. Finally, I think the second coming (for me) will get a whole lot closer in the moment I die or shortly thereafter (assuming it doesn't happen before I die). So even if it doesn't "finish" in my mortal lifetime, it'll come close enough (for me) to make no difference. :)

SpiritDragon: I think this is what Crypto was saying. If your strongest learning method is by reading (appears to be so, as is mine), then the temple ceremony doesn't include your strongest learning method (it includes pretty much all the others - watching/listening, some doing, some moving while learning). I don't feel like I learn a lot during any given session, but the more often I go, the more easily I can remember what I heard so that I can ponder what was said, and study the scriptures that seem related, then when I go back, I try to double-check what I think I remembered. It's slow going. Your description of what you wish it was like sounds downright heavenly. Mostly, I just enjoy the peace, the Spirit, and the knowledge that I'm providing an ordinance someone on the other side needs to progress.

Gator, We love you whether you love the temple or not. FWIW, over the years, I've seen various sciencey shows about how the brain works and it turns out what Lehi says above is true not just for spiritual reasons, but neurological. When something is new to a person (music, behavior, language, etc.), the brain doesn't have neural pathways for (automated) processing said new thing. Therefore, the brain doesn't know how to handle it, and so it doesn't like it. As exposure to this new thing is repeated, the brain forms pathways so that processing can be automatic. Once these are established, the thing is not "new" anymore, and the brain "likes" it. (I find this fascinating, even if it seems obvious after learning it.) Anywho, learning this has been useful for me when trying to make or break habits - it's just a matter of repetition until my brain literally gets used to it. :) (This process of making new pathways is good exercise for the brain and one of the reasons doctors recommend constantly learning / trying new things - to maintain brain health.)

Amen, Sunday21. There's such a feeling of welcome and peace there, like coming home.

You should probably avoid the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Africa...hmm, maybe just most of the world outside the US, and maybe Canada. :) I don't see how you get a short i out of the o in Clinton (that o is an uh sound - schwa - at least, where I'm from). I guess some parts of the US must pronounce that name Clintin.

Can you odd?

It's possible those who have never had a stake calling, and/or never been married to someone who had a stake calling, and/or never had children to attend stake activities don't think much about stakes. For example, my stake interaction seems to be limited to: * Girls Camp (back in the day, as a YW) * Stake Conference * Temple Recommend Interviews ...I can't remember the last time we had a stake activity. Perhaps you could ask sisters who have / had stake callings to share their experiences and testimonies of the importance of stakes. Perhaps you could discuss how to explain the idea of a stake to non-members (and laugh about how Mormons have their own "stake houses").

Ask those three questions as part of your lesson and let the sisters in RS take over. :) IMO, the best lessons are those where the teacher asks good questions and lets participants discuss. Unless the lesson explains diocese, I couldn't answer #2. What can a stake do that a ward or branch couldn't (or couldn't do as well / easily)? I think you could discuss whether the sisters feel like the stake is a blessing or aid in their lives, if so, why, and if not, what can we do to change that (I wouldn't ask why not as that might turn into a complain-fest).

Like this?

Isn't it "Ye Olde Shoppe"? (which would have to be pronounced "shope"?) We could follow the English and just go with learnt (though I'm not sure why we need that "a" in there... maybe for the Canadians ::running away:: ).

While we're here, who invented this language?! With that "ew" on the end, shew should clearly be pronounced like shoo, and so should shoo and shu (my we're redundant); but an e on the end makes the previous vowel long, so shoe should be pronounced show (and so needs an e, making it soe, or we'll have to start pronouncing it suh, and I'm not sure what to do with sew and sue); and show should rhyme with ow(,) and how. And what's up with "rhyme" anyway!? I'm pretty sure the French have something to (tew) do (due) with all this. :) PS: Which should come first when asking an exclamatory question, the ? or the ! ?

In my defense, it was one of those weird moments when nothing looked / seemed correct - I had known for decades how to spell shoe, and had I actually been writing, I could probably have done it without thinking, but I was thinking (and apparently couldn't do it without writing). (I had to google "aight". Did you hear the one about the guy whose left side was cut off? He's all right now. ::running for cover::)

You can read the BYU Honor Code by clicking those words. I didn't have to get past the bullet list to understand why that would be their policy. Given that this policy is explicitly spelled out in the honor code - which students must agree to when they apply, this seems like a non-issue to me.

Not words so much as pronunciations: aks instead of ask, avaidable instead of available. My husband hated "these ones" (redundant, unless you're talking about "these one dollar bills" as opposed to "those one dollar bills", though possibly unnecessary even in that case). In related news, I once had to resort to a dictionary to figure out how to spell shoe (and this was not that many years ago). It was one of those moments when nothing seemed right. (The internal conversation went something like this: s-h-o-w? No, that's show. s-h-o-o? No, that's for flies. s-h-e-w? No, that's biblical. How the heck do you spell that word?!)

Slightly OT: When Gore (or whoever it was) started selling "carbon credits", my brother came up with an ingenious scheme (he just has too much integrity to implement it): 1) Create a website to "reduce your carbon footprint" (for the guilty alarmists) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like plant a tree for you. 2) Create a website to "increase your carbon footprint" (for the militant deniers) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like burn a tree for you. ...do you see where we're going? One person's "reduce" money is offset by another person's "increase" money, meanwhile my brother doesn't do anything (except manage the sites in such a way as to keep the "purchases" reasonably even, and bank the money, of course). [The scientific discussion may now resume.]

If it would be accurate to say that all the "you" instances in your statement are meant to be interpreted as "one" (not as "you, zil"), then ok, I'll look at it that way. My impression was that you meant "you, zil"; if not, nevermind that last post. :) So, abstracting the above, certainly, there are people who struggle with the circumstances of their lives - hopefully not with something as simple as needing glasses (unless they're in one of those situations where they can't get them), but about more difficult circumstances. I am blessed not to have that sort of trial - other types most definitely, but not "circumstances beyond my control" -type trials, so I don't feel terribly qualified to comment on this beyond the obvious: For someone in such a situation, finding peace with those circumstances is, of course, very important, and will lead to greater happiness in this life. And, conversely, constant negativity about those circumstances will lead the opposite direction. But as I said, that seems obvious, so what am I missing? (PS: The talk immediately before Elder Cook's seems very applicable to the idea of happiness in this life and rewards in eternity.)

IMO, a prophet's calling can only be negated by God. If a prophet does something sufficiently worrisome, God will take care of it. (This isn't over-confidence in prophets, it's complete confidence in God. It's also His stewardship, not mine, to appoint and remove prophets.) As for all the things typically cited as prophetic error, I suspect we're being awfully Monday-morning-quarterback about them (aka presumptuous). We don't have the infinite capacity to go back in time and see _everything_ that would have happened to _everyone_ had the decision been the one we think it should have been. Again, I trust God to right any wrongs. Personally, I have yet to hear a prophet teach something that requires me to do something against my conscience in order to gain salvation. There are so many teachings for me to work on to improve myself and serve others, that I really don't need to worry about things which have no impact on my eternal salvation. Possible prophetic errors have no impact on my salvation. When Christ's birthday was, and what various people believe on that topic, have nothing to do with my salvation. Such things seem utterly irrelevant to me, little more than curiosities.

:) <-- my initial reaction to your post. I don't care a hoot for the frames (weight, appearance, whatever) - well, that may not be true, I like them and can't find new ones like them, so I'm still wearing the same ones I bought in 1993-ish. I don't consider myself "dissatisfied". I don't feel wronged. I don't feel like I don't deserve it. I don't think I would have deeper peace or satisfaction if I could see perfectly without glasses. All of that is childish and a waste of time and effort (I'm highly addicted to efficiency). I have never once thought "it's unfair that I need glasses" or asked "why me?" or "why did God give me bad eyesight (that meanie)?" (I'm not even sure it was a deliberate act so much as a natural consequence of mortality. That we're mortal is a deliberate act, but I don't think God sat around saying, "Now, what do I need to do to ensure she has poor eyesight." He knew it would happen, but that's not the same as intentionally causing it. Maybe He did plan it deliberately, and if so, that's fine by me.) Whatever the facts, I've never thought of my bad eyesight as anything other than a natural consequence of genetics. If it was a "gift trial" so I could learn something, I sure hope it's something I can learn without deliberate thought, cuz I've got better things to think about than my eyesight. Am I happy about having poor eyesight ("Oh hooray, I'm blind as a bat until I put on these glasses."), no. Am I upset / miserable / unhappy / dissatisfied about having poor eyesight ("Woe is me, curse these spectacles!"), no (see above). Do I recognize blessings in relation to my eyesight, of course! ("Hallelujah, I'm not living in a time or place where corrective lenses aren't an option." and "I am so grateful I have vision and that it can be corrected with eyeglasses.") I think it's important to point out that just cuz you're not happy about something doesn't mean you're unhappy about it either (even if that does read like a paradox (another of my favorite things)). "Peace" is not the same as "Contentment" is not the same as "Happiness" is not the same as "Reward". You keep switching up the emotion / term without warning us first. I would say I'm mostly at peace. I am more than content, I'm quite happy. I have oodles of rewards here and now, and waiting for me if I can hold out to the end. NONE of that means I won't be really, really happy when the day comes that I no longer need to wear glasses. And eyeglasses weren't the point. It was an example of how we can expect happiness in the next life, without necessarily gaining a corresponding happiness in this life. My expectation was that you would abstract my example into ones more meaningful for you. (But if you feel like fasting and praying for my eyesight to be miraculously perfected any next second, I won't complain. )

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I'm re-reading this talk, paying closer attention this time. Paragraph 2 (which you quoted), I think, is directed at the idea that religious service requires suffering. There are people out there (ascetics) who believe that we must deny ourselves all forms of earthly comfort, and even (for some) inflict suffering on ourselves, in order to "deny yourself". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't teach that. But we should also not believe anything like it - yes, there's guaranteed to be trials and suffering, that doesn't mean we have to go looking for them, nor that we need to be miserable during them. It's interesting that he links this paragraph to 2 Nephi 28, which talks about churches in the latter days saying "eat, drink, and be merry..." - as if these are the only forms of happiness on earth, and the alternative is to not be happy. Both ideas (asceticism and this) are false. Elder Cook writes, "Happiness in this life and happiness in the life to come are interconnected by righteousness." (One doesn't lead to or limit the other, both are results of and connected through righteousness.) He also references the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5) wherein we find a very interesting command: 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

In addition to all the things everyone has said, I'll add: consistent sleep of the appropriate duration. I know everyone thinks they don't have time for it, but unless you have an infant or similar situation, you have all the time you're willing to give it; and studies show you're more capable during waking hours if you get regular sleep - so you shouldn't need as much time to do and re-do whatever it is you screwed up cuz you couldn't see straight... :) Zentangle. Its very nature is relaxing. Ooops, just thought of another - go to the temple. Nothing wipes out the world quite like the temple.

No, it does not reduce the utility of scripture. Sometimes we need to learn about the original culture in order to have a _greater_ understanding, but the Lord is smart enough to ensure that scripture is universal. Also, if we're willing to put in the spiritual effort, the Lord can open our minds - not to satisfy intellectual curiosity, not to remove our doubts (per se), but to confirm our faith and to reveal to the person that is willing to believe _and_act_ how that scripture should be _implemented_. Truly, we must be willing to act, and we must come already exercising faith (like Nephi did with his father's vision) and then we can have confirmation and clarification direct from the source. I do not believe the Lord is likely to answer someone who comes saying, "I'm not gonna believe this nonsense unless you tell me to, cuz it sounds like a load of...". But I know He answers someone who comes testifying of their already-existing belief, and asking for confirmation or clarification, and willing to act in accordance with the confirmation. If you want a flood of the Spirit, try that. Fortunately, Christ knows all and will be the one to judge who acted honestly and who was "wresting the scriptures" to justify their own evil. Fortunately, the thoughts, feelings, and justifications of a 19th century slave-owner have nothing to do with my salvation. God speaks to us in our own language and to our understanding (see the D&C for where he says that, I believe there's also at least one place in the Bible). Please note, however, that I never said the slave-owner could get very close to Christ while remaining a slave-owner. I said the gospel is such that both the slave and the slave-owner can come to Christ, if they choose. God never tried to placate any sinner (in my opinion). He does try to help all of us see the light and choose it. He does so in ways that are personal to us. And He is infinitely merciful. It almost sounds to me like you're getting caught up on the idea of 100% of God's truth all at once - no mortal could bear it. There's ample scripture, stories from Joseph Smith's life, and simple logic to know that we're only going to understand a tiny fraction of truth in mortality; that God's not going to dump it all on us at once, thereby burning us up in such blinding light; and that we've got eternities wherein to finish learning all truth. In the meantime, work on mastering the truth we do have. Personally, I think the sermon on the mount, all by itself, is sufficient to require an entire mortal life to master. When I've mastered that, then I'll worry about more.

Perhaps we don't disagree. From the bit of your post that I quoted, I got the impression that you didn't think there would be an eternal reward for doing good things that you find hard to do here in mortality. I don't think Elder Cook was saying that. "I don't have to _wait_ to be happy" is not the same as "I won't be happy there unless I learn to be happy here". I think Elder Cook was saying the first. As for the second: You wrote: "I must find true happiness now, in this life, or I will never find it in the eternities." While that may be true in a broad, all-inclusive sense (you must find some true happiness in some righteous things here or you'll never find any true happiness in the eternities), I don't think it's true in specific instances. For example: the previous statement about wearing glasses (I'm certain I don't need to be happy about needing glasses in mortality before I'll get happiness about not needing them in the eternities); or, maybe I've managed to learn to love sharing the gospel, but I haven't learned to love cleaning the church building - I don't think I'll be denied any eternal happiness just cuz I haven't figured out how to enjoy vacuuming the church - it's just something I'll work out later. As for eternal rewards, try this blog post. (Fixed that link.)

Maybe it's because I grew up reading it, or maybe there's something wrong with me, because I've never thought the language of the KJV (or Book of Mormon, Moses and Abraham, which use the same language) was difficult to understand. I love it. And I love its difference. I start reading it and my mind immediately shifts into "scripture mode" - this is no fictional story or instruction manual I'm reading, this is the word of God. I do remember greatly appreciating the scriptures when in high school it was time to study Shakespeare. (For the record, the only other versions I've ever (tried to) read were in Spanish and Russian, and I don't have them anymore, so I couldn't give you details.)

It may vary by where in Utah you are, I'm certainly no expert, but I would think it does have to do with "Mormon-density". My stake probably takes up a few blocks. Some stakes take up a hundred square miles (guessing). If my stake lived in NYC, we'd probably take up 1000 square feet (of ground space, a lot more vertical) and the missionaries could just ride the elevators. Missionaries and members can only cover so much ground and so many people. I wouldn't know how many baptisms there are in Utah vs. anywhere else, but there are a lot of us, and some believe we're gonna catch you and dunk you eventually.