Snigmorder

Are you referring to the Eugene England incident? I read Bruce's letter and some of what Eugene England was putting out, and I think Bruce was justified. I could be wrong, but that's what I made of it.

A McConkie-ism is something abrasive or difficult said by Bruce R. McConkie. It's his own special way of "putting it." Be it his own opinions or in doctrine. The most recent time I was broadsided by a McConkie-ism was in his talk "Our relationship with the Lord" (search for it at your own risk.) In this talk he lays out the proper relationship we are to have with each member of the Godhead, and along the way explaining how the sectarians are doing it wrong. At the time I heard it, I thought he made God and Christ sound pharisaical, over pious, untouchable, impersonal. (At the time I thought "only the Smiths get be friends with God, eh Bruce?") Needless to say, it went against my conception of things. Nevertheless, he was right in the end in his main point. It wasn't that God and Christ were pharisaical, over pious, untouchable, impersonal. It's that my treatment of them was too casual, their divinity reduced by my own inadequate reverence and perhaps foolish pride. Now I understand what he was talking about. And the fun thing is, the loving, personal, and intimate Father and Son which I envisioned before this particular McConkie-ism, is demonstrated in Scripture (obvious to everyone but Snigmorder.) There have been other McConkie-isms. For example, I used to sneer and rant and murmur every time I opened one of his books. But I got over that, and now I admire the man and can read him and hear him without being broadsided. Have you ever been broadsided by Bruce R. McConkie?

Here's a talk by David A. Bednar which goes into this concept. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/that-we-may-always-have-his-spirit-to-be-with-us?lang=eng If you don't have the LDS gospel library app yet, I would suggest you get it. It's full of church resources that can help you.

Ted lives in Arizona so chase better watch his back.

I think you're right. She was kind of a weirdo anyway. Ted's friend just didn't know many girls at the time I guess.

Funny thing about Ted is that he's extremely generous with his money and has even given up personal property to try and raise money for a friends needs. If I didn't know Ted and had only heard about him muscling in on women, I would've thought him a walking scumbag.

Well quit guessing and just ask her if she likes you that way or not.

I have a friend who muscles in on girls he knows his own friends are into, and doesn't think it's a problem. Let me tell you a story about this friend, alias Ted. Ted was friends with a guy and a girl. Said guy asks said girl to a movie. Since said guy could not drive yet, he asked Ted if he could take them to the movie. I don't know how it ended up this way, if he was invited or not, but Ted went to the movie with them, as in watched it with them. At some point, Ted ends up holding hands with the girl, or kissing her, or something. Literally stealing his friends date right in front of him, and apparently had no qualms about it (the girl either it seems.) I talked to his friend many years after this happened and apparently the friend suffered by this somewhat. The whole thing was dishonorable in my estimation, an obvious and embarrassing breach of morals.

She is merely dancing around semantics to appear intellectual or "progressive," against "tradition." "The spirit will leave you if you go into a bad place" and "The spirit is still there you just won't feel it if you go into a bad place" are essentially the same thing. What strikes me though is the conceit of the statement. The idea that a member of the Godhead should suffer your presence even when you are literally entertaining the will of perdition which is rebellion and wickedness per se, is pure pride. "Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time." - Moses 6:57 What more does He need to do to demonstrate His intentions for man? "Yes, we can dull our sensitivity to His influence, but no we can’t make Him give up on us." Has nothing to do with whether or not the spirit should dwell in wickedness or not. Here's what members of the church should never stop believing: There is no man more interested in, or who has labored more for our welfare than, the Eternal God, our Father. You worship Him, not the other way around. I hope this woman comes to a realization of her nothingness.

Ask her why an infinite deity who upholds worlds without end, an eternal civilizationin, has arbitrarily decided that she is not welcome in his kingdom. Especially when he sent her to earth in the first place, to enter into his kingdom. (this statement is for effect, don't actually ask her this) Let's read from the book of Moses, chapter 7:62-63 This is about the restoration and the last days before the millennium. "And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Then shalt thou and all thy city meet them there, and we will receive them into our bosom, and they shall see us; and we will fall upon their necks, and they shall fall upon our necks, and we will kiss each other;" This is his attitude towards his saints. And he has commanded everyone to become saints, In this life or the hereafter. Now here's his attitude towards the wicked. "And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains? And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever; ... how is it thou canst weep? The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency; And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood; And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them. Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also. But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer? But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison have I prepared for them. And [mine Only Begotten] hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins; inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment; Wherefore, for this shall the heavens weep, yea, and all the workmanship of mine hands." - Moses 7:28-40 (give or take) To claim for herself that she has no place in the kingdom seems like a statement from inexperience (it's even contrary to the Commandments.) She needs to learn the attributes and characteristics of the Father and the Son. Funny thing, little does she know, that if she was the only person who would ever hearken unto His voice, Christ still would come, and would still suffer, if it meant she would be saved.

ENFJ 95% of my selections were "uncertain"

You're not naïve in the slightest. If there's anyone who is naïve it's your friend. I used to be just like that. I would carve up the world in terms of who agreed with me and who didn't. And those who didn't see it my way were obviously stupid or evil. That was when I was a liberal (and my first foray into the world of things political.) "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Said Jesus "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." Said the resurrected Lord

I understand, I didn't read anything else they said, only that one post. @Vort @Carborendum It should be said I would never call sex in the divine sense hedonistic. That was the word used, so I used it.

Remember the original context. Changed said: "I think everyone has already agreed that the purpose of gender & intimacy is not just to have children" I then argued that non procreative sex becomes less practical with more wives (my number was 30.) And therefore "sex for fun" may not be in the nature of divine happiness. Or in other words hedonistic pleasure is NOT part of the divine nature. In theory you could have 1,000 wives and one husband and everything would be just dandy if everyone had a fullness of the divine nature, like Christ.

Yes

But wouldn't they? In a marriage with 30 wives, the husband suddenly becomes a DMV.

Actually, just you, I assume they will.

Ah but who are we fooling?

Um, I have no idea why it did that, but there you go.

Here's a quote from David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses. David Whitmer: "It was in June 1829, the very last part of the month, and the eight witnesses, I think, the next day. Joseph showed them the plates himself. We (the Three Witnesses) not only saw the plates of the book of Mormon, but the Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world, and many other plates. The fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting right here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun, nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light, immediately before us, about as far off as he sits (pointing to John C. Whitmer who was sitting 2 or 3 feet from him) there appeared, as it were, a table, with many records on it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon; also the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God."

Content

Content

The husband can spend time with his wives. But if they each desire frequent physical intimacy beyond childbearing, it suddenly becomes a massive physical task for the man.

I don't disagree with you. But what happens when the man has 10 wives? Or any random number of wives?

You were 'this close'