Mike

Oh, I don't forget. Actually I feel a swelling in my chest when people protest. Strangely, I even feel it when I disagree with their positions. The swelling doesn't happen, though, when I see riots and mayhem, tea parties notwithstanding. But I do like protests in general as a matter of principle.

Boy oh boy am I going out on a limb trying to think like somebody else might think (especially somebody of the opposite sex), but here goes. I would say they probably would qualify you as a Woman despite your position on defunding Planned Parenthood and shifting the majority on the Supreme Court toward your beliefs. But they might count you as abandoning all the women with whom they believe they have solidarity--this, because you and they see things differently. But, haha, what do I know? I'm just a lying, sexist, egotistical pig (as a co-worker used to say about men in general whenever one disagreed with her).

Hmmm, I'm thinking that it isn't so much the modern ease of gathering a group as it may be that our particular society has a collective mentality which expects immediate results in nearly every aspect of life. Personally, I'm pretty darn thankful for the modern ease of gathering a group to protest, or to compare ideas in an online forum, to worship, or whatever. In any case I suppose that leaving out the process of devising long-term strategies (or at least effective ones) is as much a challenge in most businesses, most institutions, most families, etc., as it is for protestors.

Earlier @NeuroTypical mentioned "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." from The Family: A Proclamation to the World. I would think that for any member of the LDS faith there would be nothing to interpret in terms of whether spirits are male and/or female. The only choice would be to believe it or disbelieve it. Do you disagree? Help me to understand what you mean by there being a difference between the phrase above and the idea that a female (or male for that matter) spirit is placed into a body. I'm not seeking a debate. I'm merely seeking to understand, or to apprehend how I may have misunderstood your remarks.

I'll drink to that.

No, I don't think it gives any indication at all. I think it's not reasonable for either of us to draw conclusions about his feelings one way or another from (this particular) isolated fact. The plain fact alone that he married an immigrant (two actually) tells me practically nothing. I could speculate since they both hail from "Eastern Europe" and they were both models that he is attracted to beautiful exotic women. But then what man isn't attracted to beautiful exotic women? The fact that they are immigrants is little more than a coincidence but not surprising giving Mr. Trump's lifestyle. I submit that it has nothing to do with his feelings about *illegal* immigration (which I think was the fish you were trying to draw across my path, hahaha). It's a small thing, but it interested me as a thing that doesn't give offer much (pro or con) with regard to President Trump. And in reciprocal interest of full disclosure, I married an immigrant. But don't draw too many conclusions just yet.

That's a pretty big basin. Whereabouts?

I have been fortunate to make friends and acquaintances with so many people that are different from me in so many ways, including the topic under discussion. I'm grateful to them for helping me to apply what I understand to be my Savior's example when he dined with "publicans and sinners". The only category I'm still struggling with making it through dinner is the "mean people". Keep trying, right?

@anatess2 At the risk of being impudent (which I don't intend to be) I don't think a man's decision to marry a woman who immigrated to our country is a very reliable indicator of his pro- or anti- sentiments with regard to immigrants in general. But don't get me wrong. I feel some compassion toward our new First Lady. Sometimes I look at her and my imagination takes flight wondering what she must be thinking about all this.

Hmmm, not sure how to respond. (I'll get back to you after I check-in with the collective.)

Hmmm, not sure. If I visit, will I be assimilated?

Actually, you compliment me. After all, I've arrived at that stage of life where my children have begun accusing me of becoming a troglodyte.

Hahahahahahahaha Truly excellent. I would only add: there's an app for that.

Well, keep in mind that my question was about what Mr.Trump meant and wanted me to believe rather than what somebody else means and believes. If we get to decide what it means then it reminds me of the statement that a point in every direction is the same as no point at all. If everybody gets to decide what it means then it doesn't mean anything. I'm not being impertinent, and your expression above of self-reliance, independence and responsility is proper. I dare say most of us here share it. At the end of the day, however, if this shared spirit of self-direction is what Mr. Trump meant, then (a) he did a lousy job of articulating it in a straightforward way; and (b) he intentionally misleads because as you point out (rightly) this "power" was always ours, never lost nor taken from us, and most certainly not within Mr. Trump's arrogantly expressed ability to transfer. Or so I opine.

Now there’s a name I’ve not heard in a very long time. I remember that book in my parent’s library when I was a kid. Here’s something from the first three paragraphs of chapter 2. I include it here not to start anything, but just to see if it makes you chuckle like it did me. Again, I offer this only as humor after your 16-year long hiatus from voting Republican. (Hope you don't take it any more seriously than that.)

Yes, I have read it. And I watched a video of President Trump delivering it. I'm curious whether you agree (out of knowledge or opinion) that it was written for him by a professional speech writer, or that he wrote it himself and perhaps extemporized as I think he has sometimes been wont to do.

Hmmm. I don't think he did. But I also suspect that our respective perceptions have to do with the differences between those who already support him, those who oppose him, and those who just seek to look at him objectively. I want to believe about myself that I am in the third category. But I fear that if I question him in any way those in the first category will suppose I'm in the second category. So in the interest of keeping the air clear let me say that I don't want to be (or appear to be) like President Obama's enemies who sought his failure from day one (and even said so publicly then and non-stop thereafter). I want President Trump to succeed for the good of my country's people.

The way you said it is straightforward. I wonder why he didn't say it in as straightforward a way? Oh well, I appreciate your answer.

I'm not sure what this line means. It has to be metaphorical, but even so I don't know he wants me to believe. What power is he telling me I used to have, then lost, and am now getting back?

I sure can relate to this! And for me it is a kind of relief to read from your post and also from @Jane_Doe's post that I'm not alone in these kinds of experiences. I mean I never fancied for a second that I was the only one, it's just that it's nice to read that other people can relate to *me* as well. If that makes any sense, haha.

The verb "to hide" is easy to misinterpret, and I wouldn't want to be misunderstood as suggesting a meaning akin to mortal motivations. I would think, however, that God designed this world for our sake with the unavoidable caveat that faith in all its aspects is part-and-parcel of mortal experience. Wouldn't you agree?

@Traveler Thanks for your remarks. I'm curious, do you have an opinion one way or another about Gods own intentions with regard to being "discoverable" by science? I'm asking you to speculate.

It seems we've gone from Pasteur's experiment and all life in general--which is what I was speaking about--to the specifics of human life which isn't what I happened to really be thinking about at all at the time. But to say it's simple that Got created man through procreation just doesn't feel simple to me. That statement, and so much in life brings so many more questions into my mind. I'm often left with just my faith since as yet I haven't heard satisfactory answers to all my questions.

Fairly recently I met two men who claim to believe wholeheartedly in the Flat-Earth hypothesis. I don’t say I became interested in accepting it as a viable description of reality. What interested me was my acquaintances’ apparent sincerity and their determination to hold to the hypothesis as unassailable truth. In an attempt to understand them I tried to approach the subject as if I were unfamiliar with everything I have learned since childhood, and to start over with merely my own observations of nature and the conclusions I would normally arrive at--this without access to Round-Earth tradition or the experiments I have replicated over the years that support it. My intent was not to disprove their views, but to "see" them if I could. It was a singular experience for me: simultaneously an enlightening and a frustrating one. On one hand I became friends with these two men. (I met them at different times, and each lives in a different part of the world far from where I live.) I think I got closer but despite my efforts I cannot believe what they believe. Still, I feel like we have a tentative mutual respect at lease compared to most people I've observed who argue for-and-against each of the opposing hypotheses. On the other hand, I experienced a kind of helpless feeling that comes from seeing the identical real-life phenomena as the others see, but failing utterly in the end to agree on the causes, effects, and meaning. Have you experienced this?

It may be that the difficulty I mentioned stems from whether or not you and I are talking about the same things after all. Or, it may be a product of you being better educated on this topic than I am. I don't know. But as I allowed, I do realize that hormonal differences can contribute to behavioral effects (including aggression). And I understand that we are talking about general characteristics identified on average since we can also identify isolated examples of women who hunt more effectively than men or compete better in physical competition. Likewise we can identify cases where women do a better job bringing home the bacon in modern times than their counterparts, and conversely men who are better nurturers than their female counterparts. I confess also that my difficulty buying-in is related to my suspicions about taking all this as a lead-in to judging groups in order to discriminate against individuals because I feel like that's what I've observed throughout history when under the guise of science some sought to identify undesirable traits in less powerful groups to justify mistreatment by more powerful ones. Since you voluntarily changed the wording [with regard to races being more or less dependent on hunting and needing protection] to differences in the rate of transition I am interested in you giving me some examples. That's what I sought when I asked my question about which races you might have been referring to.