Carborendum

We have to understand that depression comes from a variety of causes. And we have a lot of difficulty determining which cause someone suffers from. The common practice today seems to be: regardless of the cause, medication is the answer. For those who suffer on a physical, chemical level, the right medication certainly is the answer. But if the cause is something else, medication has limited application. How are we to know? I would think that the patient and those who know and live him most (advised by keen minds of experts) would be the best judge of how to proceed. And we also have to understand that, regardless of the cause, sometimes it is not within our current medical capabilities to change. Sometimes, it isn't about "fixing it". It is just about loving someone as much as possible. We pray. And we hope for the best. That is pretty much all my wife did*. I haven't had a suicidal thought in a few years. I don't think it is "cured". But it is a bit like being a recovering alcoholic. I've been sober for years. But I can still feel it nipping at my mind. I've just gotten very good at managing it. * After living with this for all my life, I realize that my personal issues were not biological. So results may vary.

While I feel very sorrowful over your situation, I'm not sure what it as to do with the OP. The behavior you describe is reprehensible. And it should not be tolerated in an LDS Church. I believe Elder Bednar was saying something about this in some more affluent stakes that he visited. It also causes those "elitists" to be so materialistic that they don't want to leave their Lamborghini to go on a mission. I simply cannot fathom what kind of mindset would think that way, nor can I perceive of the cognitive disconnect between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that same attitude. What I can say is that I've felt that my family has felt both wide acceptance and severe ostracizing in different wards in my life. But we've toughed out the hard times and appreciated the good times.

No. I never said you did, directly. Here's what I said. It was not denotatively stated in your post. I was pointing to the connotation. As such, I make allowance for the fact that your intent may have been completely innocent. I'm pointing out that words mean something. And your choice of words may or may not have conveyed the message intended. And when you use words like: It is important to understand that the most common take away from such a phrase is: Some believe that just because it wasn't this: Then it MUST have been horrible. The facts show that there were SOME extreme cases where it was pretty bad. My explanation and response was aimed at bringing forth a more realistic image of the most common practices of the day: Given the context an d brevity of your post, it singled out BYU as THE school that did this. How could THAT school now change to embrace homosexual students? I know. You shouldn't be held responsible for not outlining ALL conditions and ALL exceptions and citing ALL occurrences. But with such brevity, the common take away was that ONLY BYU did this. So, understand that my "careful" language was simply to point out what would be the COMMON take away from your post. I was not trying to accuse you of an attack. But I do wonder: Would you say the same thing if you heard that Berkley University welcomed gay students? No. Why not? They did the same kind of research as far as I know. So, why is it surprising at BYU, but not at Berkley? Consider the wording of your original statement and see if the same phrasing would apply.

I realize you're going to believe what you're going to believe. But for the record I never said ^^^ this ^^^. If I wasn't clear, let me clarify. I was specifically talking about researchers in this field. And "everyone" was admittedly hyperbole. But it was RESEARCH. No one really knew if it would work. But that's why we do research in the first place. They want to discover the truth. And in an effort to find out the truth, they agreed to do the research. I guess you don't agree with trying to do research to discover truth. I do. As long as it is voluntary, we don't have a right to judge their choice to join in their honest pursuit of truth.

Here is my latest batch. I was very happy. I planted four. Four sprouted. The cotyledons are all very strong and healthy. The bottom right shows the true leaves opening in the middle. Here is my wife's squash patch. The one in the front right is summer squash. She has yet to grow one to maturity. They tend to rot on the vine. The other ones behind are butternut squash. She was surprised at the explosive growth. And she didn't know it would climb up the trellis. The cucumbers are being overrun and struggling to get sun now. We'll see if the butternut will stay on the vine when hanging on the trellis.

Here are my oldest watermelons. In the ground 2 months now. Each main vine is 3ft long. Supposedly they should get from here to fully ripe in the next 30 days. I doubt it. It will probably get to full size vines in 30 days. But it will take time for the GOOD watermelons to develop. This next one has been in ground for 1 month. It's my second wave. Longest vine is about 1ft. This one I planted just yesterday. I am not confident this will survive. But of the batch of seeds this is the only one that survived all the weather changes. I also found one growing wild. I suspect it was a seed that the chickens ate last year and has a promising future. It is about the same status as the newly planted one.

So here are my nectarines That nectarine is about the size of a racketball. The tree is almost the ideal shape for peach/nectarine trees. I should get to trim the center the coming winter. But they are supposed to be wide and flat. Some of the heavy branches have grown too fruitful for the structure. So, I'm holding them up with supports to allow the rigidity to set in while supported. They're still sagging a bit too much. So, I may have to reset the supports, or add more.

I understood the intent of the image. But I was puzzled by how that was the reaction given my intent for my post. This had nothing to do with tribal pride. I specifically explained that this was not just a "bunch of Mormons" who did this. Everyone did this. By everyone, I mean all people in the field of expertise regardless of religious affiliation. That alone should have been enough express that it was not about an isolated sector of society. It was the wisdom of the age. My intent was to point out that if we were in the same position as they were, no one (and I'd include you) would have thought that what they were doing was wrong. It is very easy to judge others based on 20/20 hindsight and the benefit of 50 years of societal development. But if you'd been raised then, and you were a researcher, you wouldn't have known any better. I wasn't trying to lionize them or support them. But I was trying to defend against undue slander. I spoke facts. And the facts will speak. But if all people care about is characterizations, then that is their choice. I don't know everything that actually happened. And neither do you. I've avoided judging ANY researcher of the time for doing what they thought was accepted practice. But you seem to be ok with running in guns blaring.

Explain

Careful, Jamie. You're getting into treacherous territory. This is a very twisted characterization of what actually happened. 1) This was done at MANY institutions all over the country. 2) This was a "study" done by many research facilities (including higher learning facilitites) all over the country. So, if you're going to characterize BYU based on this, then do so to the entire United States (and some other countries as well, including your own). 3) It was done with the common wisdom at the time. And they followed all the nationally sanctioned methods of research. BACKGROUND: This was done in the 1970s. We were just getting comfortable with the idea that this was a "real thing". The medical wisdom of the time categorized homosexuality as a mental disorder. And electroshock therapy was emerging as a promising method of "aversion therapy." Many methods of aversion therapy were studied. Electic shock was only one such method studied. AND homosexuality was only ONE trait that was in a long list of test traits for their subjects. All volunteer subjects were told exactly what they would be getting into and why and the theories behind it. And they could choose to leave the study at any time. Also understand that the shock used in these experiments are nowhere near as dramatic as those that are horrifically depicted/maligned on large and small screens. They were a mild "reminder" basically. Such research has produced some modern treatments (using MILD electric shock) to change people's behaviors. Damond John of Shark Tank credits such therapy for his quitting smoking. So, before you make such a slanderous statement, get all the facts.

You celebrate your mom. I don't have a mom anymore. But my wife does. Because we live in a different state we send a gift through the mail and have a phone call. At home, we celebrate my wife because there are lots of kids at home. It would be nice if your husband (as a big part of celebrating you, he might do things to help out with the celebration for your mom. You could alternate years. You celebrate your mom one year. Then you stay home the next and just phone in your well wishes. Let her know you still love her, but you can blame your husband who wanted to do something special at home for YOU. I remember one Mother's Day when I called on all the adult men in the extended family to put on the celebration and make the dinner and handle all the arrangements as we gathered at Grandma & Grandpa's home. When we got there, one of the other guys lent a hand for about 5 minutes. All the others brought a gift and left it on the counter. That left me doing all the work to get everything done for the entire extended family. I crashed in bed about an hour early that night. My wife and MIL were both very grateful. But I swore never to do that again. So, ever since, all the mothers have gotten together to put everything together. At least it isn't just a one-person-show. They all still appreciated that one year. But they don't expect me to ever do that again all by myself = I'll never do it again, ever. What the freak is wrong with men today? Can't they do some domestic stuff to take the load off of their own wives for just one day a year? No? And in all other aspects, these men have nothing but my utmost respect. But they simply refused to do anything meaningful even after agreeing to the plan. Yeah, I still hold just a tiny bit of resentment about it, now that I've been reminded of it. Thanks.

This would require that you are a precision driver with a precision vehicle and are designated as a rescue vehicle. Most people are not. We usually don't have a precision vehicle (spiritually speaking). And I don't think the average person is designated as a rescue vehicle (per this analogy). We reach out to try to save them. But we don't save a druggie by doing drugs with them. Or what do you think "driving close to the edge" would look like in that situation?

That analogy certainly fits better than the edge of the cliff analogy. And it is at least tangentially related to the theory that I postulated earlier to Vort. All the Church's posturing is about saving the Church. And the way we save the Church is depending upon the Lord. And He says that we must make sure that WE are NOT the ones causing offense. If we do our best to show Christlike love, and they still take it as offense, then that is on them. And if such misunderstanding means that they will attack us and seek to destroy us, then the Lord will see that we've done our part, and He will protect us. But if we are guilty of offense, then the Lord will NOT protect us and it will be Missouri all over again. But it will be nationwide or worldwide. That is why they're trying to tell us that we need to be more supportive of our LGBT brothers and sisters as they try to live the covenant path. I had a companion who did not understand the difference and we knocked on the door of a lesbian woman who let us in to talk to her. I explained to her the Church's position. My companion continued to explain that she was going to hell. Now, he may have been right because she flat out stated that she saw nothing wrong with it. And she was going to live that way by choice. But the fact was that my companion didn't care. He was of the opinion that even if she tried to live a celibate life and obey the commandments, she would still be doomed to the Telestial Kingdom just for having SSA (even if she continually strived to overcome it). When we left her home, he proceeded to continue another hour or so about how it didn't matter if she chose to live celibate. She simply wouldn't be accepted into the Church. So, yes. I know just how intolerant some people can be. Yes, it happens. We just want to do what we can to ensure that it isn't systemic. Because if it is, we will be destroyed as badly as we were in Missouri.

I figured the comment about the R-rated movie was. But I was surprised to hear that you didn't know who Lee Ermey was. So, I couldn't tell if that was a joke or not. Cue the Steve Martin voice: Why, thank you. Yes, I agreed with the underlying point you made (as my statement about "yeah, but.." indicated). But I guess it's just a sad day when people choose to be offended when no offense was intended. I remember when I was still in college and I was wearing kind of a funny outfit for the day and my hair was all unkempt. An office mate actually said, "Carb, you're looking all gooky today." I knew what she meant, but I teasingly responded,"Yup I do. And I'll try to ignore the racial slur in your statement." I smiled and she laughed. Why can't we do that today? Reality? Yes. I agree. That seems to be happening. But I don't have to like it.

I just realized my explanation was incomplete. The person voiced in the video from the Church website seemed to be saying that he still has the desires and impulses. But he's been able to control it. So, as far as is practical, it is exactly the same. Yes, that is what I was getting at when I postulated that even if having the trait itself is not exactly a sin, it is still a trait that has a tremendous propensity towards sinful behavior. So, we need to do everything we can to get rid of it. When it comes to sin, the idea is that we would NEVER purposefully get closer to the edge of the cliff. If we're forced there, or if there is somehow a lesser of two evils situation, I guess I could see it. But I would never see it as a positive thing.

I went and corrected the Section number in my previous post. I think part of the misunderstanding is that the phrase means two different things in the two citations. I always took the Luke passage to mean that we should be just as zealous in our pursuit of spiritual "wealth" as the worldly individual is in their pursuit of temporal wealth. I took the D&C passage to mean what Joseph Fielding Smith said: Remember that part of the reason the Saints were so hated in Missouri at the time was that we didn't just move in as other settlers trying to find their way. We moved in with the attitude that we owned the place already. It was like we were entitled. Our boldness just didn't sit well with the residents who were already there. The Lord said it was to be our promised land after all. But we didn't realize that we'd have to still earn it and purchase land like anyone else. We'd have to work for it. Then we went even further and refused to trade with them and engage in commerce with them. So, here are these strange folks just waltzing in like they own the place and then they don't even want to share their money through free commerce? Why do we even want them here. So, the Lord was saying that the way we would earn the promised land was by earning the trust and friendship of those who owned the land already. Who knows? We might even make some converts along the way. But that didn't happen because we were being to arrogant and xenophobic about it all. That's what I got out of it. ******************* So, today, we apply the same principle by taking some of the measures we do about LGBT issues. We make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness because we need to remember that even if we disagree, we don't need to go out of our way to criticize them or fight with them. Because if we do fight with them, we will lose. We need to make sure that we are not guilty of the first offense nor either of the second. And if we are not guilty of the offense, the Lord will not suffer us to be destroyed.

Are you trying to teach me a lesson by claiming that by asking an innocent question (while pointing to a quote by a Marine drill Sergeant*) is going to invalidate my comment? * Fun trivia: During filming, Ermey actually spoke his own words that he often said in front of his real troops during training. He yelled for something like 2 straight hours, and the editors had to compile it into a cohesive short scene that "captured" what a Marine drill sergeant was really like. As for your comment earlier: 1) I was trying to hide my counter argument inside a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, hoping you'd catch it because you are almost as much of a movie buff as I am. I guess that failed. 2) Your comment to which I initially responded with said: A) Literally no one despises anti vaxxers more than I do (disclaimer that not all people who refuse to get the shot are anti-vaxxers). B) (with the application of "second thought) People who don't get the COVID shot give off red flags like those who say they are not racist and begin using racial slurs. So the counter-argument was to show you an example of just how extreme someone can get with using racial slurs and not be racist (in my book). You have to take a look at the intended meaning behind the words and the actions. I can certainly see where you're coming from. It is all too often that people say,"Yeah, I understand that, but..." and then proceed to completely ignore the point altogether. Example: Yeah I understand that taking drugs all my life will mess with my brain, body, and soul. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ruin my life by using meth everyday.

That is entirely possible. That is why I added the parenthetical (as far as I can tell). The elocution was so precise that I've rarely heard it apart from trained speakers. That is not to say that a trained speaker cannot be struggling as most others do. I'm sure they do. But I found it awfully convenient that they got a trained speaker to do that.

The sister's words: While she made sure to use the kindest most diplomatic words possible (and I honestly give her credit for that effort) it still expresses that she has been the victim of intolerant people. i.e., she has been hurt by intolerant people in the Church. And that is what you were asking about.

He played the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. One of his famous tirades included saying (Imagine ALL CAPS BOLDED and rapid fire) "there is no racism here... there are no (a bunch of racial slurs of all kinds and all races). You are all equally worthless in my eyes. And it is my job to tear you down and rip you apart so I can rebuild you into the greatest fighting machine known to man. And that is a United States Marine."

So, what do you think of Lee Ermey? (Think of the video clip from FMJ that I can't post here for obvious reasons).

Perhaps if we compared it to the subject that it is most comparable to (in the context of the LoC): Heterosexual Lust. And here, I merely mean "powerful sexual desire" not necessarily going into actual activity or indulging fantasies in our minds. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the sister who called herself "queer", the best interpretation would be that she experiences same sex attraction, but she's committed to not acting on those impulses. If that is so, then what is the closest parallel to heterosexual attraction? ************************************************* If she were a married woman, would anyone ever ask her to come to a forum such as the Women's Conference and express in an equally matter of fact manner that she often finds herself lusting after other men (even though she remains faithful to her husband) ? Why not? It is just stating that she has a weakness. But she's never crossed the line. I don't think anyone would be asked to do that. I don't think many women would be willing to come out and say that publicly. What about a single heterosexual woman? Would she be asked to come to a public forum and express that she has a craving for the flesh (but she never acts on it)? Similar for men. In fact, I've seen videos on the Church website where men are asked to talk about their struggle with pornography and self-abuse. But their voices are not real, they are actors (as far as I can tell) and they show no image of the speaker. This is what makes me go "huh?" Why are these men given privacy in the discussion? Yet this woman proudly stands in front of the whole world and announces her struggle with sexuality? ************************************************* It is the "normalization" of SSA that is disturbing. So, why is it that we seem to be going out of our way to "normalize" same sex attraction? And if it is by its nature sinful, normalizing it would be worse than expressing simple heterosexual (sexual) attraction. With heterosexual attraction, it can be expressed within the bonds of marriage. So, as long as it is controlled within the boundaries that the Lord has set, then it can be the source of strengthening the bonds of marriage. So, if anything, we SHOULD be encouraging the normalization of heterosexual attraction. NOTHING good can come from same sex attraction. Because of that one quality, it is by nature sinful. Don't misinterpret me here. I'm NOT saying that simply having the attraction necessarily means one is committing sin. I believe the words of prophets and apostles have characterized this "trait" as something that is in its own category. The trait is something that has no spiritually beneficial side. But it has a strong propensity to drive one towards sinful behavior. As such, if possible, one should fight and struggle to be rid of that trait. Yet, merely having the trait is not, in and of itself, sinful. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that is like that. But why the normalization of proudly declaring SSA. But hide and protect the identity of a man struggling with pornography and self-abuse?

Isn't that basically what we do in the "Study Boards" forum?

So, it looks like I don't need a vaccination after all. I just had COVID for about 12 hours. That was really weird. Yes, yes, I was probably contagious during the incubation period. But it's over now. My wife had some symptoms like a cold or flu. But it was not really like a cold or flu. It was different. Not that it was more severe, but just weird. She was hoping to get over it, but when it continued, she called some relatives who were scheduled to visit to warn them that she was ill and they might want to stay home after all. They asked what the symptoms were. The SIL said it was COVID. They were not worried since their whole household had already had it. So, they came to visit anyway. The day before they arrived, I came down with the same symptoms. And I really understood what my wife meant when she said that they were the same symptoms, but they were just a "weird" form of it. I took some home remedies (including lots of fluids). I wrapped up in a warm blanket, and I slept longer than I usually do. I was fine the next morning. My wife is still ill. But she's on the downhill slope. She's a lot better today. But still a slight fever and some general low energy. She'll probably skip church tomorrow. I'm going to call the bishop to see if the rest of the family ought to stay home as well. The bishop is a doctor.