zil

Members
  • Posts

    10186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    199

Everything posted by zil

  1. The grocery store I go to used to be big on circling some number on the receipt and saying "You saved $1.47" (or whatever). To which my husband would always reply, "No, that's the amount you didn't overcharge me." And then one day we hired a new boss in my area who used to work at a huge national grocer (that owned 3 chains). When I told him this story, he said, "Your husband was right." So, there's no such thing as a bargain, but _maybe_ you won't get overcharged (by as much).
  2. PS: It's the same guy who created Puzzilla - which is really cool if you're into genealogy and are looking for gaps in your trees. PPS: I already emailed him. I think he'll get a kick out of it. I'll let you know what he says.
  3. :hmm: I know the guy who developed the format (it was one guy) and a significant portion of the church's genealogical database. Would you like me to ask him if he could come up with a new variation? He's learning to compose music right now (among other things) and might see this as a related challenge.
  4. How could anyone not like Tolkein?! (Don't answer that, or I might have to unfriend you! )
  5. While I agree that Brosnan is not Bond (just Remington Steele)... ...and while I could listen to Sean Connery yammer on all the live-long day about pretty much anything he wanted (as long as he didn't do it in Russian (see The Hunt for Red October ))... I have to say, Daniel Craig makes a really good Bond.
  6. Vort, I suspect we all understand the frustration. I think in part it stems from all of the following: We're dealing with text only, so we don't have all those visual and audio clues to help us understandWe're all from different backgrounds (and have limited knowledge of each others' backgrounds) and use language differently, have different priorities, fears, assumptions, etc.And the human knee-jerk reactions (for defense, justification, validation, etc.) are all very strong, so most of us sometimes react really fast rather than stopping to consider alternate possibilities.For example: in my youth, I tended to jump to conclusions about (judge) other people quite quickly, based on external appearance. I've since gained enough experience to know it's not possible to do that correctly, and gained enough understanding of my own flaws to not want others to do that to me. So I tend to be overly-reactive to things which even come close to sounding like judgements about others (in hopes of encouraging everyone to be generous - even though if I took a breath, I would probably realize that there's no evidence they lack generosity in the first place). And, of course, I now run the risk of my over-reaction coming off as judging the person who might have been judging! :: dizzy :: I don't think you can do more than you've done - try to be clear, explain yourself when others take what you said so far out of your intended context that it's needed, try to assume the best, and let some of it go. (For the record: some things make my knee jerk really hard and fast. And I pretty much always regret it afterwards.)
  7. Can't recommend Moscow (lived there 3 years). But St. Pete is worth it. From there you can take the train to Tallinn and hop over to Helsinki (great place to try every kind of food on the planet)!
  8. OK, I went and researched ...and it turns out, first you have to have a Facebook account, and then you have to have Facebook friends, and only _after_ that can you be unfriended... I don't think I have anything to worry about. (This post is mostly an excuse to post that link and the crackup smiley.)
  9. I highly recommend you add Prague to that list. I'd suggest Kenya, but I'm seriously unsure how safe that would be anymore.
  10. It seemed like _maybe_ you might have been initially, but then you clarified that you were just positing possibilities. (Maybe the rest of us are just hoping to remind _ourselves_ not to fall into that all too human trap.)
  11. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.10-12?lang=eng#9 (rejoice and be _exceeding_ glad) :) (I think it's possible to be kind without being taken advantage of, though it may be exceeding difficult.)
  12. While there's nothing explicit, there are explicit instructions to treat everyone as if they had as much worth as we do: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.43-46?lang=eng#42 (love your enemies; I suppose you can argue that one can love someone and consider them of little worth, but I find that hard to compute.) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/22.37-40?lang=eng#36 (love thy neighbor) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/6.35-40?lang=eng#34 (love, be merciful, don't judge, etc. - worth re-reading) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/18.32?lang=eng#31 (don't cast out sinners, minister to them) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11.30?lang=eng#29 (don't be angry with each other) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/64.10?lang=eng#9 (forgive everyone) (Delayed because the church servers were having problems.) I could probably go on all night, but the point seems clear enough to me. If we are to become like God, and these are to help us become like God, then I have to believe that everyone is of great worth to God, even if their choices and acts turn out to be worthless. I'll let Him decide: Luke 6:38 breaks my heart (in a good way) every time I read it - I prefer the idea of good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over. How merciful is our God.
  13. Maureen, I think Lehi's point is that while your husband may not be active and may not consider himself a member, the church does consider him a member. So long as his name is on the membership records, he's officially / formally a member (by the church's definition). I also get what you're saying: that when already inactive people have their names removed from the records, this causes the official membership numbers to more closely reflect active / practicing membership. The whole thing comes down to the use of "actual". Lehi is using "actual" as a synonym for "official" and "formal". You are using "actual" in a more colloquial sense as a synonym for "active" or "wanting to be a member" or "in practice" (i.e. those who don't want to be members, regardless of whether they formally are members, are not "actual" members in your use of the term). (At least, that appears to me to be where the disconnect lies.) FWIW.
  14. Amen, brother! (And "amen" is supposed to be spoken aloud, too, not mumbled.)
  15. Aaaah. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying there was something easier than the letters they were sending. I get it now.
  16. I've been active in the church my entire life (I'm closer to 50 than 40) and have no idea what this easier way is. Perhaps that's why - they've never been in, or married to someone in, a branch / ward / stake leadership position. (I'll bet there are more of us than you'd think.) I would assume my dad and brothers would know what you're talking about, but they've never felt the need to explain it to me (and, of course, I've never had reason to ask). But you get the point. (Of course, the other point is that this was all about making a show, not just having their names removed from a list.)
  17. :-) I wasn't disagreeing with you (in case that wasn't clear), only adding that I leave the possibility for a wide variety of divine help with mortal tedium always open. Byron added his own paragraph (the one I quoted from your quote), and I was commenting on his words rather than the scriptural. I think it scripture it's quite clear the Lord was telling his apostles not to worry by any definition of the word, but instead to focus on their call, and he'd take care of their physical needs. This was a certainty for them. I see it as a possibility (or a pattern) for us (dependent on both us and His will). Personally, I see no reason to be anxious about the necessities of mortality (as in: fret, chew fingernails, pace, wring hands). I do see the need to take care of these things (work, save, prepare, and most importantly, be generous). And I believe if we're focusing our efforts on our own call (in relation to the gospel), rather than on those mortal necessities*, the Lord will help with the necessities (by enabling us to endure trials, by ensuring our efforts provide sufficient yield, by opening up better opportunities, by increasing our natural capacity, by miraculous means, or anything in between). *In other words, do I go to work every day with my foremost thought being how much money I'll make, how to get a promotion or raise, how to keep from getting fired, etc.(worried about physical needs)? Or do I go to work every day with my foremost thoughts being about sharing the gospel, showing integrity (even at the cost of getting fired), being honest in my work (rather than stealing my paycheck through laziness or half-hearted effort), etc.; and trusting that if I do what is right, the Lord will take care of what is needed (worried about eternity)?
  18. Carborendum, I don't think you're alone in experiencing miracles. But there's no way to know where anyone else's belief begins or ends (short of them telling you, and the Spirit being involved to ensure understanding). Moroni's words come to mind (the whole chapter is relevant, really). I think that most people consider miracles so personal that they don't discuss them - and not always of their own choice, but sometimes because the Spirit tells them not to. Also, I think there are a lot of us who don't feel the need for the more obvious miracles. I'm still undecided as to whether the apparent lack of obvious miracles is evidence of a lack of faith, or evidence of efficient use of resources (probably both, depending on details). I know someone who lists among his reasons for being inactive, the fact that modern prophets don't publicly make statements like the President McKay quotes above. I, on the other hand, am baffled that he feels a need for them to publicly proclaim something which I was always certain of without such public declarations. One thing I am certain of is that we in the church need to do our very best to be converted to the gospel and help others be converted to the gospel (not the missionaries, not the church, not their Mormon friends or neighbors, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ). I find it very distressing when my fellow members list their various social and ethical and familial reasons for coming to church and never once say they come because they have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the church is His church restored to the earth.
  19. Your quote correctly, but it is important to know to whom He was speaking. It was not disciples in general. It was to His Apostles. If everyone followed this counsel, we'd all die of starvation and exposure. Yes, the Lord took a few fishes and loaves and fed a multitude, but He started with a few fishes and loaves. (I am grateful to the boy who brought them. Or, at least for his mother who sent them.) Lehi, There is older scriptural precedent for the Lord taking care of the needs of a huge number of people, for a very long time, because they were doing what He wanted them to do (if not always very well). I'm sure you'll remember it. Personally, I choose not to rule out this possibility, ever, on any scale. If the entire planet were all doing what the Lord asked of us, I'm not so sure any of us would need to take care of such things. (I'm not sure we wouldn't, I'm just not sure we would, either.) I am sure that if we were all living the law of consecration together, the way we ought to, it would be whopping tons easier to take care of the necessities of mortality and we'd all have whopping tons more time to focus on the things of eternity. Finally, there is a difference between "worry about" (which alone can have multiple meanings) and "take care of". Personally, though I take care of the necessities of mortality, I rarely worry about them (I am blessed that I don't have to, unless I choose to, and I attribute that entirely to God). But I frequently worry about the necessities of eternity, my shortcomings there, what more I can / will / should do, etc. The former seems so very unimportant compared to the latter. I'm not confident I know which form of worry Byron meant, but I suspect he meant the "fret over" meaning rather than the "take care of" meaning. FWIW, zil
  20. I wish more people would research this and vote their conscience rather than vote based on who they think might win - then better people might win (it's that whole catch-22 thing: I'm not doing that cuz no one's doing that). I have decided that for me it's less important whether the person I vote for wins and more important whether the person I vote for supports the things I know to be true (of course, subject to divine approval via prayer). I did the same research and felt that the Constitution party is a closer match to the entirety of Gospel principles than the Libertarian party.
  21. PC, IMO, you're not missing anything, but others are. Here are some of the responses your rational thoughts would get: 1) It doesn't matter how many. Or: There are more than you think. Or: I know half-a-dozen who go to church every week. (I suspect some hyperbole in there.) 2) It's punishing the child for the parents' sin. (It seems some people cannot distinguish between punishment, consequence, and/or suffering; and they tend to forget that in addition to being a blessing, baptism is a covenant - indeed, it's only a blessing if you keep the covenant.) This is always followed by one or two scriptures, perhaps an Article of Faith, in isolation, as if the meaning of the entire body of scripture doesn't impact the meaning of each individual part. Also lots of specific variations were brought up (divorced parents, one becomes homosexual; etc.) and the policy was declared unfair in such situations (as if bishops and those above them can't interview, ponder, pray, and send the information up the line even when it seems like the policy has no flexibility (again, reading a few policies without the context of the rest of the handbook and other training material)). Many especially find fault in the requirement to disavow the parents' same-gender sexual relationship before baptism or a mission. The ability to put that in context seems lost: should we baptize someone or send them out as a missionary if they don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is true? When someone is raised in a household whose very existence proclaims that same-gender marriage (in the mind of said couple) is not a sin, it's only reasonable to ensure the child of that family understands that it is a sin according to the organization they're about to join / represent before putting them under covenant to obey (or preach) that doctrine. And it's clear from the ensuing comments that they were hoping the church would one day change their stance on same-gender sex, as if the scriptures on that topic would suddenly be declared null and void. One last thought (sorry for the length so far): Exodus 20:12 requires children to honor their parents. Baptism would turn that from commandment to covenant, since baptism is a covenant to obey all of God's commandments. But some of the rest of those commandments include things like sharing the Gospel (the one that teaches same-gender sex is a sin). How in the world could a minor child of same-gender parents (or one parent in a same-gender marriage) keep both commandments at the same time? Better for the child not to enter into the covenant until they can understand exactly what they're getting into, and stand a chance of keeping that covenant. And in the meantime, do their best with honoring their parents.
  22. Whether all of that is true depends on which liberalism you're talking about, which is why I suggested a definition of the term be applied for this thread. As Elder Widtsoe pointed out, the term has been erroneously re-defined for political purposes, and if you mean political liberalism, you'd be better off saying something more like "the left end of the democratic party" (or all of it, if that's how you feel). The "favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms" definition is highly compatible with the revealed word of God. Even "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values" is compatible with the revealed word of God - particularly when it comes to on-going revelation and, for example, what Joseph Smith did in discarding erroneous tradition and restoring the truth. This definition: "(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform" can be argued compatible - we do believe strongly that people should be free to exercise their agency. Or you could say it sounds too much like anarchy or selfishness. The right wing are all the time complaining about liberal education, but read this definition: "(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training" - how could anyone object to that? You get the idea (I hope). The word is often misused and more-often means different things to different people (left-wing politicians vs the libertarian party). So instead of sticking with a word which cannot be agreed upon by all, how about come up with a definition or other specifics which can be discussed with meaning rather than raging opinions...?
  23. Blasphemy! Next you'll be adding that Canadian "bacon" stuff to the list!