Lost Boy
-
Posts
755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Lost Boy
-
-
Have you ever stopped and contemplated why God does what he does? Does God have a motive for what he does? What does he get out of what he does? Or does he get anything out of it?
If he loves us, why did he let a third of the hosts of heaven follow Satan, never to be saved?
If God can do anything, why didn't he just make us all like him? Just clone himself a bunch of times?
Why give us the option to fail? Why not design a system that allows for exaltation without the chance of failure?
-
17 hours ago, Grunt said:
I thought I was going to get some Dr. Demento.
I miss listening to Dr. D. on the radio. My brother and I would stay up late trying to get decent reception.
-
When I was young I would judge people that inflicted self harm or commited suicide. I was pretty ignorant.
Being older and knowing people that suffer with depression and other mental illnesses, I could never judge again. Having overwhelming feelings of sadness and worthlessness is absolutely terrible and I feel for those that experience these. For many there is no simple solution. This isn't a case of a broken bone you can set in a cast and be healed in a few weeks.
These are struggles that go on for years and can incapacitate people to the point they won't get out of bed or do anything productive. They don't believe doing anything will be of any value. They don't feel the joys of life and want the pain to go away, but don't know how to make it go away.
They need our love far more than they need us debating whether it is a sin or not. It is our place to love them, not judge them.
- Jane_Doe and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
On 9/10/2018 at 2:08 PM, LiterateParakeet said:
I would say that, at least for some, being overweight is a symptom of deeper emotional or mental issues. It's no coincidence that I lost 90 lbs, AFTER several years of therapy. It would be a shame to keep people out of the temple because their pain is more visible.
I have been overweight for most of my adult life. I wondered if it was a symptom of depression or some other mental illness. For me I think I am addicted to carbs. I ended up going on a low carb diet. I ate a ton of veggies and some meat. I stayed away from sugar, bread, potatoes, rice, etc. And when I did that, my desire to eat plummeted. I stopped snacking. The only time I got hungry was meal time and I would eat my food and was done.
This was a big turning point in my life. I dropped a lot of weight and sticking mostly to a low carb diet, I have managed to keep it off. And I have gone back to eating more carbs from now and then, but I find myself wanting to eat more and more. No reason to need to eat, but an incredible to eat.
So, can being overweight be a symptom of a mental health issue? probably. But I think it really has way more to do with what we eat than anything else. Changing to a diet comprised mostly of healthy veggies some fruit and some meat has been life changing.
-
12 hours ago, mordorbund said:
Has anyone mention Hosea?
I'll see myself out.
I was going to mention that as well. I know it is a story of the relationship between the lord and Israel, but I really think that modern day could use it as well.
How many wives have divorced a husband for looking at porn? How many couples have split up due to infidelity? The lord forgave Israel whenever they came back, but we as modern people have a huge issue with forgiveness.
I could have divorced my wife for what she did, but I am truly grateful that I took a different path. I almost feel like a newlywed right now.
Forgiveness is a powerful concept. In the case of the op's question, forgiveness shouldn't play a role in deciding to marry a divorced woman, but it is similar in that you are not holding someone's past against them.
The lord loves us regardless.... Why should we be any different with those we decide to marry?
-
There is only one name that is acceptable to apply to this group..
Salty Saints.
- zil, NeuroTypical and Sunday21
-
3
-
A bit of an update.
I spoke with an auto law attorney. She said what often happens here is that the insurance companies will put a clause in the policy that states only drivers covered on the policy will be covered. And here is the real sucky thing for the owner of the car if that is the case. Under the no fault law of the state, if the driver not at fault does not have insurance, they are not entitled to the $1000 that no fault would typically entitle him to. The brother was driving the car and he might not have been covered by the policy which would effectively mean that the car was not covered and he would receive nothing.
So I can completely understand his frustration. Time to call my insurance company and see if people not listed on my policy are covered.
-
9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
This question would be better stated, "Do we have members who want to be difficult rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"? Or, "Do we have members who would rather play in the realm of theoretical questions, rather than increasing the Spirit of the meeting"?
Hard questions are excellent, when they provide an opportunity to edify the class and that which doesn't distract from the learning (or the topic being discussed). Theoretical questions are fine as long as people recognize they are theoretical.
True, not hard questions. I answer these types of questions honestly. No, I am not the type of person to ask these questions as they aren't important. The scriptures specify Noah built an ark, whether or not all, 90%, 80%, 70%, etc.. of the animals fit on the ark doesn't provide a edifying discussion. Dinosaurs, pre-adamites, etc... All theoretical that haven't been revealed.
Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The Lord creates the earth. The Lord causes four people (that we know of) who are able to live upon this earth with translated bodies, but couldn't have a whale swallow a man - OK, sure.
Not sure what you mean here. If the question pertains to the topic, and helps clarify or edify the discussion, then ask the question in Sunday School. Why bother the bishop with something we can search the scriptures, search the prophets, and receive revelation ourselves?
If the question doesn't pertain to the topic, why even ask? Study it out, theorize, and then go to the Lord or wait for the Lord to reveal it.
Sacrament passing to the bishop, as presiding authority, doesn't confirm or negate God is a respecter of persons. God is definitely a respecter of office and callings. The bishop doesn't always receive the sacrament first. If the stake president is attending, the stake president receives the sacrament. If a general authority, seventy, is attending and is presiding he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle is attending he receives the sacrament first. If an apostle and the prophet are attending a sacrament meeting the prophet receives the sacrament first. Really not a difficult question, and doesn't pertain to respecter of persons.
Throughout scripture God has very much shown he is a respecter of the office to which those are called.
No, I am not asking if you have trouble makers. But rather not just taking the typical sunday school question and answer and perhaps giving it more thought.
Does asking whether Jonah actually was swallowed by a fish lead to a bad gospel discussion? No, not always. I think it can lead to a good discussion. It kind of depends a bit on how it is brought up and how the instructor handles it.
And no, I don't believe the story of Jonah. It doesn't make any sense to me.... at least not the part being swallowed by a fish.
-
3 minutes ago, Vort said:
But the problem is that someone gets the sacrament first. That isn't fair. It means God loves them more! At least, that seems to be the theory of those who thinks the bishop shouldn't get the sacrament first.
could be.
-
11 minutes ago, Traveler said:
There are indication in scripture that Jonah was dead but brought back to life in dramatic fashion. But there is a much bigger problem - Jonah was swallowed in the Mediterranean. In order to swim from there to the destination the creature would have to swim around Africa into the Persian Gulf and a distance up a river. There is not even a modern high speed water vehicle that can make that distance in the designated amount of time. Obviously there is more to this story (there has to be) than what we are given in any literal interpretation of scripture. There are details left out or should we say "Unanswered" or unanswerable. Some think that miracles must be explainable. I am of a different mind - I believe all miracles have intent that is not harmed by our understanding the truth of them.
The Traveler
For better or for worse, I believe many stories in the bible to just be stories.
Is it better to have faith in a story that didn't happen or believe it didn't happen, but understand what it was the story was trying to tell us?
-
2 minutes ago, zil said:
So, shall we randomly pick some other person for God to love more? Maybe the organist? The person sitting in the farthest corner? One out in the hall, maybe? Maybe n people to love more, where n is the number of people passing * the number of people who can reach the tray at the same time?
No, wait! Stop the presses! I have it! We pass the trays all around, but no one can eat until a bell rings, then we all eat at once! Ha! No one gets more love. Perfect.
Crud! But even at that, someone will have to hold onto that little piece of bread longer than others. Are they special or really unspecial for getting the bread first / having to hold it longest before eating? And then there's the logistical problem of collecting all those cups.
What if we form a line, like the Catholics? Then whoever wants it bad enough gets it first. Please, people, no pushing and shoving.
OK, let's try this, manna from heaven. Put the bread in dispensers that drop in sync from the ceiling. Sure, the water dispensers may drip from time too time, but at least this way, we're all equally loved. Yes, this is the only fair solution. @Carborendum, we need an engineer too design this contraption.
Personally, I think someone who reads something into the bishop getting the Sacrament first needs something more important to do with their brain.
I don't see any need to "love" anyone more. Just pass the sacrament. Start at the end of the pew and go. No fanfare. It worked in my BYU ward. No one remembers who got passed to first. They just passed. No questions asked.
-
Another practice I don't get is the need to shake a general authorities hand.
Here again, a general authority is a man. The spirit he has is the same that is in you and me. Shaking his hand is not going to infuse testimony power into you. I would venture that there are plenty of members that are more saintly than some general authorities. They hold the same priesthood as most males in the church.
I understand why the General Authorities shake the hands of members... Because the members want to and it brings a smile to many members faces when they do so. I have shaken the hands of a number of general authorities and I was excited at the time, but in retrospect, I really got nothing out of it.
To me it is like having a 3 hour layover in London and then saying that you've been to England.. Being able to spend an evening with a general authority would hold vast more appeal.
-
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:
I understand the line of reasoning (I really do). I just don't buy it. Given that the presiding authority already has to acknowledge that the prayers were said correctly, it strikes me as overly redundant (see what I did there!) to require that he take it first in order approve of its performance.
That being said, I'm not on a campaign to do away with this practice. It's an entirely benign tradition and I just don't care. I'm just not inclined to attribute any more meaning to it than I perceive.
Also, breaking out into song randomly is kind of fun.
I attended a BYU ward where the bishop instructed us not to pass him the sacrament first. He claimed to have a letter from the first presidency stating that it was not required to do so.
To me passing to the Bishop first just confuses the teaching that God loves all of his children. He doesn't love the Bishop more.
I don't buy into the notion of doing things because of tradition. Don't get me wrong, tradition can have its place.. If there is a tradition there is generally an understood way to do things making it easier for all to be on the same page.
But then people get set in their ways and there may be better ways to do things or reasons not to do things, but we do them anyway out of tradition. I do question many things and ask why something is being done a particular way.
As for passing the sacrament to the Bishop first, if you ask the question, people will give you different answers and generally most answers are not based in doctrine. If it isn't based in doctrine and members have misconceptions as to why it is happening, I would rather see it done away with.
-
Do you have one or more members that are not afraid to ask the hard questions in Sunday School, priesthood, RS meetings?
How did Noah get all the animals on the ark? How about dinosaurs?
Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first?
Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish?
OK, maybe these aren't really hard questions, but they are questions that go against the establishment. How do you handle these questions as an instructor? Are you the type that might ask a similar type question?
If something about the gospel doesn't quite make sense, are you the type that would ask the question in Sunday School, if lesson was on that particular topic, or would you wait to ask a bishop? Or would you just not ask the question and let it go?
For me, it would depend on the question. Is it really pertinent? If you are discussing that God is no respecter of persons, I might ask the question about passing the sacrament to the bishop first.
-
-
13 hours ago, LatterDSaint said:
Final update: Just a few minutes ago actually, me and my girlfriend have officially broken up. The emotions were rampant earlier this week for both of us individually, so its not quite the same now and I cannot feel any more at peace that this is the direction that the Lord wants us to go after thoughtful prayer and scripture reading. I believe that she will serve a mission and I will continue praying for her as she prepares to serve and whilst she is serving. Thank you all for your participation in this thread. Putting politics aside, you are all great people haha
Breaking up is hard to do... Those words would make a great song...
I think it is especially hard when you still like her a lot and you don't know what the future holds for you. Time wounds all heels...
My typical advise would be to go out and find another love, but in your case, maybe not what you want to do. I would probably try and throw myself into school and work and get my mind off of things.
Good luck.
-
5 hours ago, Vort said:
Why on earth would the prosecution ever even think to offer an escape from the death penalty?
I am not opposed to the death penalty, nor for it. I can see argument for and against and right now, if someone is executed, I neither cheer, nor morn. And if the guy rots in a cell till he dies, fine too. I'd even give them the option to suicide.
-
34 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
The worse he can do is carry through on the threat (which he'll most probably loose because that's the law). Don't let his bark scare you.
That is my thought as well. if he takes me to court, I'd show that insurance settled with him and then walk out. And probably pay a lawyer a bit of cash as well.
-
I grew up republican, but am now quite unhappy with the republican party. I am definitely not happy with the democrats either.
Here is where I stand on issues.
1) Abortion... I might inflame myself here, but I don't have an issue with the day after pill. All other forms I am against. The problem is, who do you punish for having the abortion? The mother? the Doctor? both? After the 50 million or so abortions performed in the U.S., I can't see punishing the mother. That said I think the U.S. does an abysmal job deterring unwanted pregnancies. There could be far better education. And I am all for contraceptives..
2) Immigration... One, I would do away with the law allowing those born in the U.S. to be automatically considered U.S. citizens. Just plain dumb. But I would make it far easier to immigrate here especially if you have a worthwhile job. I would create a tax class for immigrants. I would not tax them social security, but would have a higher income tax rate for them. I would provide an easier avenue for citizenship for those with skills that show they are a benefit to society. For current illegals, I would provide a path to amnesty, if they can prove they are a benefit. And I would come down hard on employers that hire illegals.
3) Medical. I would set up a two tier medical system. A basic system that all would pay into that would cover all necessary medical procedures. Make it no deductible. Walk in, show them your card and get treatment. This would cost most of us nothing more than we pay today and most likely would cost a bit less. In most cases employers would just pay the government instead of an insurance company. The second tier would be private insurance that would provide a bit better care... private rooms... fancier equipment, etc.
4) Military - I would reduce the military by 50%, possibly 75% over the course of 10-15 years.
5) Infrastructure - definitely increase spending on infrastructure. Green projects, better roads, etc.
6) Education - I would establish a set yearly grant for students to attend university or vocational schools. The money could only be spent at schools that limit their tuition increase to the rate of inflation. This grant would be a set amount say $12k/year. If the tuition was less than the $12k, then it could be used for room and board. The student would have to maintain a minimum of a C average.
7) Minimum wage. I'd do away with it. Let compitition drive the price up.
😎 Welfare.. If you are able bodied, you work. And if it is city beautification.... picking up garbage, tearing down old building units, etc... so be it. But preferably government partners with private industry where government would provide funds for private industry to train workers for 6-12 months and then private industry would then hire the person. If they did not, they would not be eligible to participate in the program for 2 years.
9) Holidays.... I would require employers to provide a minimum of 3 weeks vacation in addition to current official holidays.
10) Dump corporate tax all together and just do personal income tax.
I am pretty sure I don't fit well in either party, nor would I fit well in the libertarian party either.
I didn't vote Trump nor Clinton because I have very negative views of each. I would like to be out of the world police business. Stop giving aid to countries in the middle east including Israel.
-
3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
My home state is a no-fault-state and the following is a very common scam: person drives a cheaper car (4-8k) with no insurance (which is totally illegal), and then purposely slams on their brakes in a place they know people follow to close (like round-about which freak people out around here). A dented trunk requires body work to fix, which is expensive so that dent actually totals the car, which they guilt the victim into paying for--- despite the fact that they are legally completely in the wrong here. The car of course is still perfectly useable so they just pocket the money. The scam's victim is usually a young women because they are seen to be more manipulatable in this regard.
So while I don't have a crystal ball to speak to specifics in your situation, I would be very suspicious from what you described to me. Frankly, this is why you have insurance: let those evil goons deal with this for you.
That has been going through my mind since I spoke with the guy. It makes a lot of sense.
Really the only unethical thing I have seen in this is the guy calling me up and threatening to sue me if I didn't pay him. That to me is pretty unethical.
-
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Well, he's not gonna get that confirmation from me either.
No-fault Insurance States (Florida is one) is designed to limit the amount of money an at-fault individual (or his insurer) has to pay for injuries to the other party. This doesn't mean that you or your insurer doesn't have to pay. It simply means, there's a limit to what the other guy (or his insurer) can demand from you in a court of law. So that, if, say for instance you are at fault in an accident that caused the other guy to become a quadriplegic, you won't have to lose everything that you own to pay for the guy's medical bills.
But, what the other guy can sue you for is not the same as what is ethical. Or in short - what is legal is not always ethical - like, yelling foul-mouthed abuses at your wife does not become ethical just because your free speech rights make it legal.
Therefore, if this was my daughter - I would do due diligence to determine what exactly is my daughter's fault (what she caused the guy to lose) - and then find a way to make it right without having to lose my shirt. It could be that the guy is scamming. Or it could be that the guy called your daughter personally because your daughter put him in dire straits and he knows he has no footing going through the insurance or court systems. A non-scammy guy in dire straits would skimp up on insurance premiums and drive very carefully hoping he doesn't get hit by somebody's daughter.
Yes, no fault only applies to the vehicles themselves. If you own a vehicle and it was being driven at the time of the accident, you are responsible to take care of the damages to your car whether that be through insurance coverage or out of pocket.
I do not carry comprehensive coverage on two of my vehicles because they are not worth much. I know that if they are hit, I am only going to get $1000 from the person that hit them. That is the gamble that I take by not having comprehensive insurance on them. I would not not go to the person that caused the accident to get money out of him. That would not be ethical. I didn't pay for the coverage so that is on me. That is the way the rules of the game are set up in this state.
He knew the rules. He gambled and lost and now wants someone else to foot the bill.
Now I have been hit in the past and on one occasion I knew the damage done to my car could be repaired for around $600, if I handled things myself instead of going through my insurance. Going through insurance would have cost $1500 and would have required a police report which would have jacked up his rates. I offered to take my car to the repair shop and let him pay the repair shop directly to avoid everything. He jumped on that and all was good.
The laws are there so everyone knows the rules to play by. He played by the same rules and tried to save some money. He got his money, but doesn't want to accept the results of his choices. I have accepted the results of the choices and have followed the rules. That to me is ethical.
Here is what I think actually happened. The guy has a crappy car. He wants a better car. He has comprehensive insurance on his car and find a victim driving too close. He jams on the brakes causing an accident. He collects money from insurance, calls me telling me a sob story how insurance won't pay and tries to collect additional funds from me to help him get a better car.
-
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
Funny when I am at peace I feel no need to ask people for their opinions about what I am doing in the first place.. Yet you did...
If you are truly at peace then walk away from this thread and do not look back because there is nothing for you here. Every post will show that your claims of peace to be a lie (if only a lie you are telling yourself)
I am a piece of what I did. I am not okay with the guy calling me and trying to get money out of me. That was more of my question what would you do about the guy that is trying to get money out of you.
-
44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
I would call the insurance company. In this he has the rights to call the insurance company and bring legalities in regards to them. If he was driving in a No Fault State without insurance, that can be problematic since normally No-Fault states made those laws in the first place to curtail lawsuits. Thus, his ability to sue is limited.
IF he gave you a call, refer him to your insurance and tell them legally he needs to deal with them first. If he persists, refer to a lawyer in your state on the law, but most likely they will tell you that he can take you to court on LEGAL items, but on certain items he CANNOT do so (normally medical, but it varies from state to state that have these laws). If he chooses to harass you instead of doing it the legal method, call the police. If your daughter had insurance she did as she was supposed to as per the law and that is the legal entity he is dealing with. If he does NOT like how much they are going to pay him, then he has legal options to sue.
In this instance, if he chooses to sue you instead of them, it normally will cost you money, but the likelihood of him winning are not good. Depending on what he sues over, it may also be illegal for him to do so.
If your daughter did not have insurance either that can be more difficult. As you have then excised the legal entities that would normally be taking care of it between themselves, I would probably do what I could to make the matter whole between us. I would pay him NO cash.
I would ask that he takes it to a vendor that we both agreed upon to assess the damages and repairs. MAKE SURE that the damages are those that were actually CAUSED by the accident (this is why you have insurance people because sometimes people claim damages from accidents that were not actually from that accident). Pictures from the actual accident would be nice if he is going that route (and would help greatly in court if he took you to court on that behalf).
First thing that pops up is that there does not seem to be a 2006 Cadillac Deville on KBB, it appears the last year was 2005. That raises an alarm bell for me. However, there IS the 2006 DTS model. It looks like they are being sold between 4,000 and 6,000 dollars. I went to KBB and entered in the price for one in Florida that was in EXCELLENT condition (only around 3% qualify for that so doubtful, but giving benefit of the doubt), and the highest price available (4D) and got that a trade in value was between $1000 to around $1500 about. I'd say the insurance would only give him at max $3000 and then total his car. If that's the case, he's trying to bypass insurance.
In a No-Fault State (depends on the state as laws vary) by trying to bypass the laws in place he may actually be committing a crime by trying to extort more money. It is dependent on the situation. Extortion is not normally smiled upon and in this instance may be prosecutable.
This is why one normally uses insurance because people get angry and would overprice their own vehicles in that manner. If your daughter didn't have insurance than finding out the actual worth of his vehicle probably is ALSO important. It could also boil down that the car was totaled but his brother needs a way to travel and cannot afford a car at the prices the insurance is willing to pay. If your daughter didn't have insurance and this is the case, it may be they might be mollified by just getting a car they can use.
AS I said, I'd call the my insurance company and tell them what happened and get their advice on what to do next. They ARE the ones he should be dealing with and why the laws of your state probably went to No-Fault.
However, if your side (daughter) was also driving without insurance it gets harder to say what you should do. I gave you information and ideas above, but I can't really define the exact situation. It probably would help (if she didn't have insurance, if she did, the answer is easy as we pointed out above) if we knew the exact location, make and model of the car (I suspect it's a DTS) it would be easier to get an idea of what you should actually pay and it was worth, or you can look it up the Blue Book Value.
Yeah, she was on our insurance. I am pretty sure he didn't cover his car and is trying to scam me. Anyway, I spoke with insurance and they will talk with him.
-
3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:
Yet you come here asking for what other people would do... and then you argue with them when they tell you exactly what you asked of them to tell you... That does not sound like someone at peace with their actions and choices
I am at peace. But when I am told that I am not doing the ethical thing. then I take issue.
The Doctor Is In
in General Discussion
Posted
I did not know that. I must find a link.