Mike

@clbent04 Personally I'm not satisfied with the so-called answer from "ask gramps". I wonder if you are satisfied. In any event I feel that for my own part I have little choice but to try to follow Psalm 46:10

Hahaha, ok. R.I.P.

To characterize it as the world being stuck on an empathy thing is hardly accurate. I'm sure you and many others do have genuine compassion feelings and do as you say. But to draw it as if emphasis on one word or even as a new emphasis on individual approach to interpersonal relationships is a deterioration of the good principles you described is simply to distort things, or so I submit.

The OP made me think of church lessons I've listened to and how often they seem to become like this thread. Then I remembered that my very first exposure to the word (empathy) was via the original Star Trek television series episode “The Empath”. The title character was an alien who possessed a power to heal other beings’ physical suffering—but she could exercise her power only via taking others’ suffering on herself. I found it significant that she didn’t seem to have the power of speech. I liked the episode because it made me think about things I hadn't considered, and I don’t recall that it made any effort to draw contrasts with sympathy. The impact on my introspection (since I couldn’t actually heal the way she could) was to ponder the extent to which for me to emulate empathy might involve quiet and physical contact. Some of my experiences attempting it have been personal pearls.

Now that you raise the issue I observe that I typically have left-handed work gloves without mates. I am left-handed. My sampling is less than half of your sampling. I suspect you'll require more participants.

@zil The interactions I've had with you in a couple other threads have helped me in my observations of the posts on this thread. This came as a surprise to me.

Good advice on the one hand. But given all the silly joking around that I observe on more threads than not, I don't see why anything like a tangent should be advisable to take elsewhere. Most silliness, tangents, etc. die a natural death anyway from diminished discussion without the need to worry about thread hijacking, in my own opinion anyway. I've been advised myself that if I didn't like a particular way a thread was going that I should essentially not let it bother me. Certainly this thread (like most) already looks graphically like the roots of a plant sprouting off in a variety of directions.

Here in the United States progress has been made, of course. And my own position is not that every woman in the United States is treated unfairly, nor that no man has ever been treated unfairly either. But I disagree with your claims about what has been proven because my own experience indicates that despite our progress from the past inequities still exist more often that you seem willing to admit.

Not sure what you're saying here. The Celestial Kingdom will not be populated exclusively with beings who entered in to the covenant of eternal marriage. Are you saying the opposite?

Oh. Sorry I was sort of out to lunch on how this sub-forum is meant to work. Hmmm, that being the case I should probably ponder it longer. I did read the chapter and it resurrected some questions I've had for a long time, but like I said, I probably ought to think harder longer.

@pam I'm interested in discussing. Does something particular in this chapter interest you, Pam?

@Dillon, are you a male, or are you a female? Are you one of the youth, or are you a leader? (I'd better say that I'm not about embarrassing people. I just want to understand the context as I compare your remarks to my own experiences, if that makes any sense).

Hahaha, your childhood reminds me of one of our (I think) contemporaries. His name is Robert Kirby.

I'll give you that today's 20 year-olds haven't been treated badly for generations, but then I don't think that really makes a lot of sense to start with.

Well, everybody gets treated unfairly to varying degrees and at varying times. But to the point women really have been treated unfairly for generations; and complaints of unfair treatment were valid complaints. So, there was no victim-playing. There were real victims.

A way to play the victim--in what way?

Yes, I believe that's perfectly true. Elder Larsen also opined as much in the piece I read. And of course, the saving ordinances performed in the temple are done to that end. I'm wondering about those who don't attain to the highest degree, and those who inherit lesser kingdoms. And of course to wonder is all I can do unless I'm unaware of it having been revealed.

Thinking about the patriarchal order mentioned in the OP I began to wonder about relationships between people who love each and don’t enter into Eternal Marriage. I read a piece on lds.org containing some personal views of Elder Dean L. Larsen wherein he wrote that the patriarchal order has no relevance in the eternal worlds except for those husbands and wives and families who have entered into the covenant of eternal marriage. I wonder what is to prevent two people from falling in love with each other and enjoying a relationship on that basis if they want.

One might take this advice and simply utilize the word 'gender' and 'equality' or 'equal rights', and express support for "gender equality" or "equal rights regardless of gender", but to little avail. Soon laziness would seep in. The terms gender equality and equal rights regardless of gender would become morphed into equalists, gender equalist(s), genderists, GEs, ERRGs. Some with opposing views would likely introduce further changes meant to disparage the equalists with names like the eqs, the geqs, etc. In English since the letter is 'q' is usually followed by the letter 'u' the names would change to the equs, or the gequs, and supporters would become the equinists or the gequinists. It's generally unavoidable. Ultimately a group on some forum would have a thread about Why Gequinism is Bad. But I suppose the good thing is that an objective observer would determine that at least the names were gender-neutral.

Along the same lines I've personally wondered whether a race could become so spiritually advanced that mathematics, physics as we perceive it, and other sciences are to (that race) metaphorically less than prehistoric technology is to us. When I was young I pondered that God is the ultimate scientist, the ultimate musician, artist, etc. Right now I wonder if those pursuits as we know them are (for God) simply sentimental similar to how playing "Ring-around-the-Roses" might be to me? (Also, in this same vein I'm thinking of novels by Orson Scott Card and his character, Alvin Maker's, powers of wood joinery along with the beginnings of his first forays into communication with smaller creatures such as insects.)

I welcome you pointing that out to me. I freely admit that my personal feelings often shade my interpretation, even when I do try to be objective. You and I haven't interacted much. So let me try as objectively as I can at the moment to express my viewpoint if you're interested. I've been under the understanding that it is conventional netiquette to add emphasis with one exclamation point as opposed to three, and that capitalization of an entire word has come to mean yelling or shouting. (I had it pointed out to me more than once and I decided to discontinue it on my own for the sake of avoiding misunderstanding.) That's probably the most salient reason I interpreted @Traveler's use of it to be a personal-feelings response to my original question, and that my question was annoying to him. I'm hopeful my explanation goes toward reducing misinterpretation all-around. Anyway, I take your point. Thanks. P.S. @Traveler, if you're reading this I hope it serves to avoid friction.

Are you referring to "the evolutionary basis for Good vs. Evil Conflict" Joe Rogan segment on Youtube? Can you name names and events wherein great leaders channeled their capacity to do evil for good to triumph? (I'm seeking to understand before I seek to be understood. )

Your capitalization and exclamation points connote annoyance with my question, but I'm gratified that you responded to me. I confess to you that although I was interested in your OP from the start I have had difficulty with its development, and I'd like to read some specific examples (only two for now) of what you observe to be adverse challenges to the notion of parents being responsible for basic intelligent scaffolding to distinguish good from evil (and how these challenges differ from past centuries). Then I'd like to read your specific ideas for dealing with those challenges.

Oh. So was an appeal to science to warrant an argument against LGBT really what this is about?

In reality the MTC is not an exception. The MTC demonstrates the reality of the norm. What is exceptional about the MTC is that it incorporates the Spirit, but the essentials of human language-learning are still there and utilized with a degree of focus metaphorically like using a magnifying glass and sunlight. When you say it needs to be pointed out that language learning is not just learning how to say a sentence..., you are, whether you realize it or not, referring to an ideal and to a goal. What I described is more akin to the reality of the process. The MTC utilizes the same essential drills that a parent utilizes with children and that all humans must begin with such as learning how to say a sentence--to borrow back your term. I don't doubt your sincerity, but I'm skeptical of the numbers your comment earlier (about non-Filipino missionaries speaking with a native accent) might lead us to believe. Similar to the reality that it takes years for most children to speak their own language in a way that people outside their immediate family can understand them most missionaries arrive in their assignments unable to speak fluently (a pretty subjective word in itself) and those who leave their assignments two years later being able to fool a native listener (about accents) are rare indeed. (Don't make the mistake of misinterpreting what I'm saying as a denial of the reality of the gift of tongues, or of teaching by the spirit. That isn't what I'm doing here). In any event, keep trying to convince me that a child learns language differently than an adult does. You haven't succeeded yet. The successful children and the successful adults learn language very similarly utilizing the same essential skills. The adults who do it differently are exceptions to the rule. (Hahaha, don't say it. I already know I haven't convinced you, either. But we're having fun, right? )