Mike

Just wondering aloud if to the original writer (of the scripture) condemn and forgive were more or less synonymous? I suspect that the whole point of reporting the event was for you and me to read the verses and draw the conclusion (among others I suppose) that through Jesus Christ we have hope and that our determination to change by forsaking our sins is crucial.

I can relate to that satisfying feeling.

Not sure I can see a useful difference between Jesus refusing to condemn me and forgiving me because if He condemned me and told me to sin no more I wouldn't be any better off. If He forgave me and told me to sin no more I would be better off and of course need desperately to not commit the sin again. So it seems to me that not condemning me and forgiving me are practically the same thing. Maybe I'm overlooking something.

I was ruminating upon the properties of a geometric point, but then I felt embarrassed that I might be inappropriately demonstrating what a deep thinking guy I am but it was too late to make the post go away

.

@Vort Enjoyed the video. (I liked the break-up song, too)

Hmmm. I'm reminded of the saying, "If the shoe fits, wear it." And so I sit here pondering the size of my own feet. As I ponder, I wonder about what prompted your thoughts on this particular topic, Vort. Is this aimed at any particular experience lately? Given what you said (and rightly so) regarding cluelessness about how other people think and deal with difficult topics I suppose it's risky to conclude how the "deep thinkers" think, too lest I be guilty of the same pridefulness I might be tempted to indict someone else of having. It's all very challenging.

Seems like anything left outside for a couple hours or more where I live risks bird droppings on it. I guess I could set up a scarecrow, too.

Hahaha, I'll say. And I love the colorful clothes she wears and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair <3

Thanks for sharing. By the way: I've been "picking up good vibrations, oom, bop, bop" for along time from a certain girl I met (and married) a long time ago.

I'm curious. I'll watch for another thread. But in the mean time please tell me more. You placed realms in quotation marks, and you used the term planes/vibration levels. Are these words your own choice, or do they have a different source? What do you believe, and what motivates that belief. (No intent here other than my curiosity).

@anatess2 I'm of the opinion that romantic love is not new despite what many (if not most)) currently believe. I say this notwithstanding the fact that up until "modern times" marriage was mostly a familial business. I say it because I interpret romantic love as emotional, and I believe that our emotional capacities, traits, tendencies, etc. existed actively even when social constraints in many cultures determined who married whom. Care to help me change my point of view?

Hooray. Me, too. Now back to the issue. Where were we?

OK, fair enough. You called me on that, and you're right. I'm picturing a woman saying this to me, "Because you have resources and a strong army I love you." Give me your argument (again if necessary) for how this is romantic as opposed to, say, practical. Because It seems more reasonable to picture the woman saying, "Because you have resources and a strong army together we can rule the empire, and I'll give you an heir." And I can picture myself saying to myself, "OK, that takes care of the empire and the heir. But I really love the servant girl." I'm just not getting how it's romantic.

The following doesn't constitute hard evidence. Maybe it's conjecture. But it's from Utah County as opposed to where it "could" be from.

I don't disagree with you. I only bring it up because it illustrates the feelings involved. I wouldn't want to be misconstrued as attempting to set up examples of Apostolic opposing camps on the subject as evidence or as reasons to feel one way or another. Feelings (in my experience) often don't "care" about evidence and reasons.

Don't you think, however, that even examples from Apostles such as Elder Richards G. Scott and his wife illustrate how deep these feelings are--even from people who I would think to name among the last who misunderstand marriage.

I'll probably be accused of being shallow-Mike. My wife and I have often played a game where we try to explain to one another why we love one another. We usually come up with, "I got nothin'; I just love you". Oh, and sometimes (even after 40 years), "You just turn me on."

I'm not seeing the relationship between natural and selfish, or between natural and putting up a false front of self-righteousness.

Help me out here because I'm having trouble with a connection between [being in love with someone] and [distinguised, vast resources, an army, physical prowess, landed title]. It reminds me of explanations I've heard which relate to what some consider evidence from Evolution.

Although I am drifting away from the OP topic per se, I would add that I can see how the modern-day emphasis on romance for it's own sake can actually make it harder in some cases for a young couple to make their marriage succeed.

You bring up good and interesting points. Greed may be at the heart of the matter. But at the same time I'm prone to consider the tender feelings that may be involved, at least for many people. Let me offer my son's feelings as an example. In a nutshell he can't get over his feelings that for me to marry another woman (should his mother die before I do) would be tantamount to adultery. This dovetails with his belief that just because she isn't here doesn't mean that she isn't somewhere still loving me and yearning to be with me. It becomes harder for him to consider two or more wives in a polygamous relationship. I'm recalling something @Eowyn brought up in another thread about her feelings wishing her husband would court her like he used to do, or something to that effect. And so it strikes me that if she had to share him so to speak with two or more other women, her feelings could become compounded because he would be physically be with her even less of the time. I'm only using her remarks to illustrate what I suspect might be the feelings of many women, and so if you're noticing this, Eowyn, I hope you won't think I'm speaking for you or putting words in your mouth. A third look at feelings is the way 1+1 works so nicely in most relationships: Parent-child (one at a time vs. Parent-many children all at the same time as in conversations before bed), one man-one woman, best friend-best friend, "two's company, three's a crowd", etc., etc. In other words when I'm with my Sweetheart I can't be with anyone else, and if I'm with my "second wife" I can't be with my Sweetheart--somebody always gets left out. I mean even in God the Father's relationship with his Only Begotten Son there's no room for anyone else "in between them"--or so it feels to many people.

I can't disagree with anything above. Everything you've written seems valid to me.

Yes, I mean that you misrepresented what I'd said. Often when people examine an issue the more examples they can find, the better to analyze the issue. So not merely a different example but more examples can be helpful.

I suppose I'm often guilty of painting myself into a corner by choosing my words with less care than I might otherwise do. My carelessness often requires me to go back and take more time to explain myself. In that regard I agree that Warren Jeffs, himself, represents only a single data point, and thus a statistically non-representative sample if as I said one looks no farther than Jeffs alone. And yes I agree that our opinion are shaped by the people we listen to. However, I believe the people we might be less ready to listen to often represent a source a source of information that might make us change our opinions, sometimes for the better. I don't mean to hold myself up as a paragon of virtue in that regard.