Carborendum

I have heard just one too many times from CNN about the "conservative hypocrisy" for railing against cancel culture, and now we're canceling Bud Light. Let me define the difference. Similarities: Triggered by some socio-political event that rubs people of differing ideologies the wrong way. Public shaming is a primary tool. Tries to hurt the target in their pocket book. Differences are more important. Cancel Culture: Depends on violence to destroy the target. Depends on defamation, not just shaming alone. The difference being that they have to make up stuff to make the accusations dig deeper. Political power is often used to destroy the target. Lawsuits based on "hurt feelings" are often used to destroy the target. Often executed/encouraged/driven by people who would not reasonably be considered an "interested party". Often effective more out of fear for the target's life rather than livelihood. Almost always effective as long as just a few people keep up the violent rhetoric. No sacrifice on the part of the cancelers is required. Instead, they require the sacrifice of the target. Boycotts: As close to a purely commercial (mass) transaction as can be. Only people who have previously supported a business have power to affect the business. People's livelihood is threatened, rather than people's lives. Usually grass roots. Any political involvement is incidental and doesn't threaten by use of governmental force. Is ONLY effective when sufficient customers believe in something enough that they are willing to change their own spending habits. (Self-sacrifice). Most of the time boycotts are absolutely useless. The very few times it has actually been effective required two things: 1. The people who object to the behavior make up an enormous percentage of the customer base. 2. Said customers are willing to self-sacrifice (whether paying more for a substitute, or doing without, or something else) to make their voices heard. Is this not the law of the Lord? Things will only change if large percentages of the population are willing to make sacrifices. When the left tried to cancel Chick-fil-a for supporting traditional marriage, conservatives gathered together to support the restaurant. It jumped up to become the #1 Fast food chain in the country. Why? It was good chicken with some good seasonings. But #1?, really? Well, that's what the public thinks. I heard one exchange on a random news report on site. A little girl was complaining about having to stand in such a long line. The mom said, "Freedom isn't free. We have to make sacrifices to preserve our freedom of speech." The Lord will give us back the power to direct society if we are willing to make sacrifices together as a society. We don't even need to be a majority. We need to be enough to be strong and willing to wake up the duped (for lack of a better word) to see the light. As the righteous begin to wake up, and the wicked begin to feel the pricking of the Holy Ghost, we can have the world back the way it was before this craziness. But it will take societal sacrifice. People aren't waking up to the Lord. They're just tired of the craziness. That's not the same thing. That's just the sorrow of the damned. It is only when we turn to the Lord that society changes. The Lord would not destroy S&G for 10 righteous people. But when there weren't even 10, he told them to get out so the rest could be destroyed. I don't know how sincere this Bud Light boycott is. I don't know what percentage of the population actually drinks it. But if people have just woken up to believe "I never liked their beer anyway," then their boycott will fail. "I never liked it anyway" is not a sacrifice. And that's not the way the Lord works. I believe that this boycott will fail because of this important factor.

I finally saw a complete episode ("I have called you by name"). I'm going to make a prediction about the last episode (or so): That same scene where Jesus calls Mary's name will have a call back at the garden of the empty tomb.

My wife and daughter introduced this to me the other day. I need to point out one bit of data that I'm sure someone is going to use to criticize this position. The Dobbs decision was NOT on June 26th. It was June 24th. But it should be pointed out that SCOTUS doesn't normally conduct business on weekends. This past year, the 26th landed on a Sunday. The 24th was the closest Friday to the 26th. Apart from that, I couldn't find any substantive problem with anything he said. In a weird way, this actually promotes hope. The altars of evil are being broken. We cannot solve our current problems simply by getting the right people into political office. While we cannot do it without that piece of the puzzle, the majority of the puzzle is to turn our hearts towards God. There are more with us than than there are with them. And I ain't just talking about those beyond the veil. There are more of us than with them in the United States. There are more of us than there are with them in the entire world. We just need to remember to focus on spiritual strength rather than political strength. And that is the change in mindset we need to make.

I like the comments and videos shared here. I tend to agree with everything that has been said so far. He really can't get the launch pad ready in 2 months. There are physical characteristics of materials that no one on his team knows about. It isn't in their discipline. I wish I could talk to him.

Maybe I'm not quite getting it. But what you've shown me so far, I'm not seeing it fitting the narrative.

OK. Sounds pretty painful. But it doesn't seem to fit. This could fit. Pretty Painful. But again, why didn't anyone notice the blood afterward?

Shrug. I carry. My wife would start carrying. My eldest son will carry when he returns from his mission. He and his wife will have a lot of dates at the range. Yup, 18 months in, and the couple is still planning on being together. My daughter and I will have a lot more daddy-daughter dates at the range. If we die by other means where guns would not help (e.g. explosiives) then, hey. Heckuva way to go... attending church.

And that's perfectly fine. Personally, I don't think any of that which I described is "idolatry." I look at the ark of the covenant and realize it had two idols right there on top of it. Why did that not violate the first and second commandments? No, I think that the idea that Moroni on tops of temples being considered "vain idolatry" is really stretching to criticize our practices. And if they're stretching that much, I really don't want to give them a whole lot of credit in taking our beliefs seriously.

Thanks for you comment, JAG. Yes, I realize I'm holding a minority position. And I'm not trying to diminish anyone who would disagree with me. But my position has developed based on a lot of thought considering two questions: If it were figurative, what would need to be true? Nothing other than the Lord suffered both body and spirit at a level that no mortal man could possibly have suffered. No on here doubts that. If it were literal, what would need to be true? The same as the above &... This phenomenon of hematohydrosis would have to be on a level that has no known analog from anywhere in medical history. (I'll explain)... OR There was something else going on that we don't understand. (See note 1 below). As I understand hematohydrosis... It occurs because a person is born with blood vessels that intertwine with sweat glands and paths such that blood can easily be excreted through pores. For someone with this condition, it does take some level of stress, but not necessarily an extreme level of stress, to thus bleed. Another person without this condition can have the same level of stress and even much more without ever bleeding. IOW, from a medical perspective, the idea of sweating blood has no real significance with regard to how much pain or suffering the Savior went through. So from a medical perspective, the Savior bleeding from every pore would only mean he had one of the worst intertwining of blood and sweat vessels that has ever been recorded. But it really had no bearing on the level of suffering he went through. Reading it figuratively: We, the readers, recognize that the idea of "bleeding from every pore" is powerful imagery. And the "idea" of bleeding from every pore is much more penetrating than the literal physiological reality of doing so. Thus, the "idea" is told and re-told because it is so powerful. But the literal? When you realize the reality, it isn't as big a deal as we might think. It simply reads like the language that was so often used in Jewish culture. e.g. "by the life of my head." That doesn't mean that a person's head has any special life force beyond the human being as a whole. There is imagery/metaphor there. There is also a finality since some very few can survive from a stab through the heart. But if you're beheaded, there's no coming back from that. Period. But again it is about the absoulte-ness and the finality of it, the "idea" of it that is the important message. It doesn't mean that the forfeiture of life (for violating such oath) must be by beheading. The aforementioned death can be by any means. NOTE 1: I've heard a particular commentator proposing the following idea. The Father and Son are so intertwined that we might consider a doctrine that borders on the Trinitarian view. This is similar to what Elder McConkie said about how "they are one in a manner that is much more significant than simply being one in purpose." This person theorized that when Jesus was left utterly alone, that their spirits were so intertwined, when the Father had to depart from him, it pulled the blood from His veins. Talk about powerful imagery! I have no idea if that is true. But WOW! How powerful that image.

Fairly typical. I'll give you something to consider. I hope you have some time. This will take a while. But I hope you can get the meaning of what I'm trying to say. Before I do so, I need to make two points very clear: I AM NOT SAYING: That the Bible is a bunch of propaganda. It is not. It is the word of God. The overall story is God's word as He would have it for us. I am not saying that we're being duped by the Bible. It is truth. I am not saying that it was all made up to sell something. That would be ridiculous in the grand scheme. WHAT I AM SAYING: The method of communication is that of metaphor and archetype. Why? Because it is a very efficient method of communicating. It is also a highly effective method of persuasion. That is why it is such a convincing book. And why shouldn't it be? The Lord wants to convince people. He, Himself used parables (which rely on archetypes and metaphors) to convey messages with layer upon layer of meaning. It was beautifully done in a way that only Deity could have done. As you really get into the language of the Bible, you'll find a whole lot more of it is figurative than literal (hence we read things like Adam's rib). Don't get me wrong, the overall narrative of what happened in the Bible is absolutely true. But the wording, phrasing, and specific details, etc. is highly metaphoric. It is meant to be that way because it is meant to give meaning behind meaning. The message conveyed in the Bible uses archetypes rather than drawn out explanations. And it is beautiful. Take a look at what I wrote about the Parable of the Wedding Feast. This is why you consider Isaiah, Paul, and the Gospels to be so special. They use these methods more than most other books of the Bible. The Book of Mormon, OTOH, is completely different. While there are a few parables, visions, and metaphors here and there, the great majority of it is straight narrative. The stories themselves don't speak to the inner archetypes of all humanity. It simply shows examples of how they play out in real life. It is plain. It's like a newspaper. Why does that make a difference? When we go to see a movie, we have certain expectations. Within those preconceived notions of what we expect, we leave room for the unexpected to help entertain us. This is called the "willful suspension of disbelief." But here's the stop gap. If the movie doesn't do a good job of properly framing things within those preconceived notions, then we just can't suspend our disbelief enough to actually "get" the movie. One perfect example would be if we compared the recent D&D film with the one from 2000. I think we can universally agree that the 2000 version was AWFUL!!! from an entertainment perspective. But if it were just a story. It would be "just a story." It wasn't meant to entertain. How does that apply here? The methodology used in the Bible is primarily meant to speak to us psychologically and emotionally. Once it pulls us in, we can then begin to develop the spiritual messages contained in its pages. The Book of Mormon doesn't use the psychological and emotional. It simply gives the narrative. It's a newspaper that's all. And when we just read a newspaper, we don't expect a newspaper to talk about miracles happening. We don't expect the power of God displayed in the manner that the BoM displays it. We're not in the right frame of mind to receive it. The Bible certainly has a great influence on your heart and mind. But what about your spirit? Can you describe what that is like and how the spiritual different from emotional/psychological? STORY TIME: As a missionary, I taught a man who was married to a member of the Church. He had agreed to meet with the missionaries on a fairly regular basis. He was a very nice, humble, penitent, and spiritual man. He was very knowledgeable about the Bible; he faithfully read it every day. His wife had told me once upon a time that she had, on more than one occasion, witnessed such an outpouring of the Spirit during some of the discussions with the missionaries that she couldn't understand why he never felt it. I discussed it with him. I discovered that he had never actually read the BoM. It wasn't that he refused. He just didn't have any motivation to do so. He further said that he tries to only do what the Lord tells him to do. And when he asks, he gets one of three answers (Yes, No, Wait). As far as the Book of Mormon, he got nothing. None of those three. I found that odd. I simply opened up the book and started reading Nephi's psalm. As we finished, he was smiling. He declared, well, you've whet my appetite. He prayed yet again, and he was told "yes, read it." Just as I was about to transfer out of the area, he said that he had prayed about the BoM as Moroni stated. He said he got a very emphatic "Wait." Again, that was odd. An EMPHATIC "wait" is kind of like a very enthusiastic "maybe." Some time afterward, my companion from that area told me that he had agreed to be baptized. Then I later found out that he had died before his baptism date. I'd ask you to compare how you feel when reading The Acts vs The BoM. I think you'll find it to be very similar. Consider what you're expecting when you apply Moroni's promise. Now, I'll tell you my experience with Moroni's promise. I wrote this elsewhere, but I just don't feel like looking it up. Just a few years ago, I was in a discussion with someone about Moroni's promise when they challenged me "when was the last time you prayed to know if the BoM was true?" I had to stop for a moment. I couldn't remember. I remembered having done it. But I couldn't remember when or where or the circumstance. And I really couldn't even remember the experience itself. So, I figured I'd just pray now... I got nothing... I was stumped. Everything I'd heard about the promise said I was doing everything right. I obviously already believed. I had full intention to continue in faith. But I got nothing. Puzzling... But as I looked upon the scene, I realized that I hadn't gotten a "no." I just hadn't gotten a "yes." So, I continued. Over the course of a month, I read through the BoM about three times. And I was really spending time studying, cross-referencing, pondering, you name it. And I continued to pray every night for confirmation. Nothing... Still not a no. Not a yes. Just nothing. I gave up the intense study. I went back to normal study mode which really should be better. But, hey, I'm human. I prayed everyday. I don't remember how long it had been by the time something happened. But I remember what happened to me. I was really humbled by this experience. I was feeling lost. I wasn't simply asking for my beliefs to be confirmed. I was asking for Him to reach out to me to let me know I was worth communicating with. I was a lost sheep. Outside, I kept a stiff upper lip. But inside, I wouldn't say I was "doubting" per se. But I certainly didn't feel like I knew anything. But then one night, I happened to be praying somewhere other than beside my bed. And I heard the words of the Lord to Oliver Cowdery. "DidI not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?" ... Uhmm... I'm not sure what you're talking about... Then it happened. I could say that I had a vision. But it was more like a restored memory. I tend to have very vivid memories of certain events. But this is one I hadn't thought about since the day it happened. My mind's eye was opened to the time that I had originally prayed about a year before my mission. I wanted to have a strong testimony if I were to go tell the world that what I have is God's word. I happened to be praying in a very similar setting (as far as furniture, time of day, etc.) as when I prayed that one night. And in that prayer, I received a very slight feeling that was different than anything else I'd felt. It was not overwhelming. It was not powerful. But it was just completely different. It was kind of like how kim chi tasted when I had COVID (you get my point). But it was oh so faint. If I had not been so focused and completely alone, I would have missed it. And as I pondered that scene from when I was young, I clearly saw it. I then received an other confirmation. The same "like nothing else" feeling. But this time, it was much more powerful. It was absolutely clear. Even when I sat in darkness in my house, I felt light in my mind. I really do know that the BoM is the word of God. I know that despite all its weaknesses and the faults of mortal men who wrote it, the meaning and messages are the word of God. And I gain more faith in Christ by reading its pages. The most interesting part to me is that the barely noticeable impression from my youth was also a confirmation. It was from the Lord. And I have no idea why it was so weak. Maybe He was blaring it loudly, and I was mostly deaf. I have no idea. But even as weak as it was, I felt it. It was true.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe that feeling when you read the Bible? And are there any specific passages that make you feel that way more than others? Are there any passages in the Bible that make you feel like it is just a bit contrived?

Yes, I was aware of the D&C passage. But it seems to be figurative as well. Not as clearly worded as Luke. But still figurative. I'm certain most of us have experienced sufficient physical and/or emotional pain that caused us to sweat from every pore. In this case the pain was so great that it did, indeed, cause him to sweat profusely from every pore. And for the pain that was caused, it may as well have been blood. Whether moonless night or not, I'm just not seeing it. He was given no chance to change clothes throughout the trial. Did no one notice the blood all over his clothing? No one under the Law of Moses saw this as an "unclean" condition? The servants of the Jewish leadership freely took him and his bloody clothes and not a single complaint about having to handle someone covered in blood? When the Romans stripped him and scourged him, no one noticed blood already all over his body and clothes? When the soldiers cast lots over his robes, they didn't care that they had blood all over them? While I'm not 100% discounting the idea. But if we are to believe it literally, something is missing in this equation. BTW, the physical condition hematohydrosis is still not really understood. While it is theorized that it is caused by stress, we don't know if is any significant stress that causes it. So, we don't even know whether this was the phenomenon that the Savior experienced.

JAG, as much as I think it would have certainly been a magnificent interchange, I have some alternative points. I'm not certain it happened that way. The use of the Tetragrammaton is not all that clear. We don't know what version of "I am" Jesus actually verbalized. All we have is the Greek. Everything else is a translation from Greek (unless you buy into the Aramaic originalism theory -- I'm agnostic on the topic). And in Greek, it is simply two words "I" and "am" (εγώ εἰμι / ego eimi). We just don't know what he actually said as far as the nuances. In real life did He even say it in Hebrew? Or was it in Aramaic? Or did he say it in Greek? Most Jews of the day spoke all three, some more or less fluently. And it simply wouldn't have had the same force if it weren't in Hebrew. Even if it were Hebrew, did He say "I" or "I AM"? Comparisons with the Old Testament are foggy. Some places where the Hebrew uses the "I" absent the verb ( (referring to mortals) the Greek sometimes uses "I" and sometimes "I am." Did he actually speak the Tetragrammaton? It is certainly possible. And it would have explained why they stepped back -- aside from the fact that Jesus had "a Presence" But I'm not sure that is what happened. Why did they step back? I've seen reactions like that when someone simply responds with such overpowering confidence that people are shocked. They had all heard all the stories of his miracles (both the priests and their guards). They knew that Jesus had become popular. They felt that they had to have multiple guards with them to overpower them. Then all of a sudden the guy is only 1 ft away from them and he shows no signs of fear of all the guards that they have. He must have some secret weapon ready to pounce. (checks for lasers on his chest -- figuratively, of course). I think that all played a part. Did he say the Tetragrammaton? Could be. But we'll never know in this life. As for the blood, Luke's account used the phrase "as it were" which means Luke was using figurative language. It wasn't actually blood. As far as we know Luke was a physician. So, he thought of the pain of the body as well as anguish of soul. Luke was trying to convey the level of agony through use of powerful imagery. So, no, he was not drenched in blood when he returned from praying.

I apologize for bringing up an ancient thread. But it happened to come up in one of my searches for another matter... An interesting parallel here is that in the ancient world, many pagans (I purposefully use the very old-school, classic definition here) would make oaths in the name of the god or gods of the person to whom they were speaking. The widow used the term "Yahweh Elohim" to mean "The Lord thy God" even though she was of a different faith. She apparently recognized something in Elisha's manner or probably his dress or accent which labeled him as an Israelite. This was perfectly acceptable since people changed religions every time they went to a new nation or new city. They worshipped whatever god was popular at the time. So, it meant nothing that they would swear oaths in the name of foreign gods out of courtesy. But... For Israel, it was quite different. A faithful child of Israel would never worship another god simply because they moved. Thus, they would never swear an oath in the name of an idolatrous god. I'd believe that as Latter-day Saints, the modern Covenant People, we should follow suit. Would we say these creeds "out of courtesy" just because we're in a funeral for the deceased? With no other knowledge or context, I'd say no. So, it would have been nice to have known about this ahead of time to get proper context and understanding of tradition. I would have read through it to see if I had a problem with it. I don't have a problem with the "catholic church" line because as Anatess mentioned, it is a small "c". I have a problem with a different line which could be considered doctrinally incorrect -- or not.

An interesting history: (take this story to be worthy of all the effort I put into verifying it -- which wasn't very much). In the 1800s (and earlier) angels were placed on pinnacles of various buildings throughout the United States as a weather vane. An early image of the original Nauvoo temple had a horizontal "flying" angel with wings. It was not meant to be religious. It was simply decorative -- a common American decoration on all sorts of buildings. In the final construction, wings were removed. At the time, it was not considered to be Moroni. It was simply "the angel of the restoration." And it is often depicted in images as facing west, not east. To me this makes more sense doctrinally. Once the Saints began building temples in Utah, the angels faced east. At some point people associated Moroni with the "angel of the restoration" because... of course he was. So, not a lot of revelation involved in the decorative icon that has come to symbolize our temples. Brigham Young said that he prayed for guidance in the fulfilment of his duties. And if he does anything wrong, then he asks that the Lord make it clear that he needs to fix something. That's the level of revelation in some more mundane decisions like this.

Is it vain idolatry for many Christians throughout the world to have an angel on the top of a Christmas tree? Is it vain idolatry to use the remnants of a Pagan holiday as decorative center of the celebration of the birth of Christ? Do Americans participate in vain idolatry when we use currency with the graven images of various presidents and other Founding Fathers? How about Mt. Rushmore? That's a pretty dang big idol. Ask any Jew. They'd prefer that Mt. Rushmore and pretty much every statue in the country be taken down. The bottom line is that the Lord does what He does on His own timeline and for His own reasons, no one else's.

Elder Gary E. Stevenson gave the opening address in the Saturday morning session of Conference. He pointed to the First Presidency letter that was read in Sacrament Mtg a few weeks ago: Like most people, I didn't really pay much attention to the bolded portion at first. All I got out of it was a change to my calendar. That was all. But eventually something else happened. A few things happened actually. First. the music. Our choir sang The Miracle. Unfortunately, the second part is obviously a high tenor, and we only have one tenor. We have three baritones and one true bass (one of my sons). So our version was... different. But it really felt good to sing it. Because I'm a baritone, I had to practice and warm up a LOT to get my voice to hit those high notes. They're pretty high. The choir really got it together, and the director was very patient with our shortcomings. In the end a lot of people went to the director and complimented her on the piece. I think a lot of people really felt the Spirit of Christ from that song. Then there is the long story of the next piece. I have submitted the song to be sung through four bishops and two wards (in two stakes) for the past six years (this was the seventh). Something always went wrong. SURPRISE, I actually got to perform Via Dolorosa this year. And the pianist nailed it. What was pleasing to me is the expressions on the congregation's faces. They really felt it. They were right there in Jerusalem. It was beautiful. Then I realized that I really felt it. Then we went home When we got home, we basically went right back to doing what we normally do on Sundays after church. We don't do Easter Egg hunts on Easter. We feel that it is too secular to muddy the waters. So, we do that the week or two before. We couldn't this year because of weather. Our Easter traditions consists of one thing. We have a modified Passover Seder where we sorta "Christianize" the dinner. But during the afternoon when we normally use our day of rest to... rest. This year it was different. My wife came to me and said,"We've been given extra time to spend with our families and dedicate this day to the Atonement and the Resurrection. What should we do? Well, we ended up doing some stuff. What did you do?

I just had an interesting talk with one of my missionary sons. I asked what he thought of Elder Oaks' talk. He said he thought it was awesome. I asked why. He said,"Because the scriptures are awesome. I wonder sometimes why GAs say anything at all. The answers are all in the scriptures." "And there was Elder Oaks simply telling us to read the scriptures. That's how we get to know the Savior. Ya know. Hear Him."

It seems Elder Oaks was answering a question that so many people have, but have never heard anyone providing an answer. And there it was in black and white. Yet it is simple enough to discount it as "unoriginal." This is what I heard One of Pres. Nelson's main themes since he took up the mantle. But the question that people have had is "how"? Someone I know recently asked me what on earth "faith" and "testimony" even mean. They seem like buzz words and vague concepts of something religious/spiritual, etc. But what exactly is it? How can I search for something when I don't even know what I'm looking for? This is not someone who was being rebellious. This was someone sincerely wanting to feel this "thing called faith" that so many people attribute their peace and happiness to. But this person had no idea what to look for. So, Pres Oaks gave the first step: Read His actual words and we begin on the road. Pres Oaks started us on the road by giving us the selection that he did. And there is a pattern to it. He started with: So read the words of Christ. He gave us many. But the Savior said a whole lot more (including many things in the D&C which Pres Oaks did not quote). We first hear Him by reading the recorded written words of the Savior. By hearing those words, we learn to recognize His voice. Once we can recognize His voice, we are ready for the next step. He gave some steps to prepare for sanctification -- the fourth article of faith (but it was worded as the Savior said it, not as the Article of Faith says it Baptism, humility, Holy Ghost... Remember that these are the FIRST principles and ordinances. We've already shown faith by spending time studying the scriptures in search of His words. We humble ourselves by doing His will by being baptized. We make the first covenant of salvation. We learn how to receive the Holy Ghost. How do we receive the Holy Ghost? I don't know if he meant it to be a chiasmus. But I can force it if I try. (Sorry, the formatting on the forum doesn't allow for the arrow thing without taking up a lot of space. SERMON ON THE MOUNT Change of heart (The Beatitudes) Higher standards: Whosoever looketh upon a woman, etc. etc. etc. Not of this world (forsake the world) Beware of false prophets Take my yoke and learn of me Deny yourselves of all ungodliness Do his will... ye shall know of the doctrine. Seek, ask, knock... I am the resurrection and the life. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart... Keep my commandments. My peace give I unto you. No, it isn't a true chiasmus. It's just something I do to connect dots. When thinking along these lines (a chiastic structure) it helps me make connections where it may not normally occur to me. Through a change of heart, living higher standards, we have not the peace of men, but the peace of the Lord. "Wickedness never was happiness." We forsake the world by living the commandments of God. We take Christ's yoke upon us by going where He goes, doing what He does. Then we brecognize what Eternal Life is really like. The simple seek, ask, knock is not very fruitful until we deny ourselves of all ungodliness. The central message being: If we do His will, we will know and understand what Eternal Life really is and how to get there. This is the answer of how we can develop our faith and testimony. It is an answer to how we can grow closer to the Lord and learn to recognize His voice, His commandments, His will, and become like Him. Whether Pres Oaks intended it or not, that is what the Savior is always teaching us. THEN PRES OAKS TOOK IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL. We tend to think that faith is a spiritual thing. We tend to think that living the gospel is a spiritual thing. But know... that it is a physical thing just as much as it is a spiritual thing. We start by doing something physical. But it must be something physical that represents what is going on with us spiritually. We can't just "go through the motions." We tend to think that faith is a spiritual thing. We tend to think that living the gospel is a spiritual thing. But know... that it is a physical thing just as much as it is a spiritual thing. We start by doing something physical. But it only does us any good if that physical is an outgrowth of something sincerely spiritual -- even if it is only a desire to obtain something spiritual. It is interesting to note that the Greek word "be" (Ἔσεσθε) in Matt 5:48 isn't the present imperative. It is the future indicative. It is a process. So, "be ye therefore perfect" is a command to get on the road to perfection. What do we do as we're on that road? And what do we expect to see at the end of that road? How do we prepare? Finally, in the context of everything else he said, he gave this passage that means something on multiple levels. As I heard these words, I was impressed that it was more than just the words of scriptures. It included every spiritual impression I've ever had. The Spirit can remind me of whatever he told me before. But it also included something else. I had an impression that we were all taught through the Spirit in the pre-earth life. How could it be otherwise? What were we taught there? How can we remember it? Through the Holy Ghost.

Yes.

Is there something wrong with these practices to the point you believe it is worth mocking? (that's what a drinking game is about). I have said that there was a period of a couple of months on my mission where I was on a spiritual high. One reason was that I was memorizing EVERYTHING. I memorized scriptures. I memorized quotes from various GAs (whether in Conference or in books). I memorized hundreds of axiomatic phrases and quotes from philosophers both ancient and modern, both profound and comical, both educated & ignorant, both religious and secular. I would not give up any of that for all the money in my 401(k). One thing that many people don't understand is that memorizing things can be on several levels. For me (and possibly many of the people you make fun of)... I am only able to memorize things if I understand it. Without that understanding, I can't memorize anything. I decide to put forth the effort to memorize it, only if the wording used by the original speaker struck a chord with me. That wording was simply perfect. So, why not quote it as is? What if the modern wording by McConkie was the best and most succint way of saying a phrase. Wouldn't it make sense to repeat the same words to get your point across? By memorizing, I am able to call up any of those phrases to remind myself of the "right thing to do." Words, much more than "impressions", will have a tendency to convince the mind on a course of action. Think about why Jesus was "the Word." There's more than one meaning going on in that passage. I remember several things my mission president said that I carry with me even today. I remember them because they struck a chord with me. One might say I felt the Spirit when I heard those words. So, yes, they've become part of my "personal standard works" one might say. I also remember what a stake president said about marriage about 33 years ago this month. I found it nowhere in scriptures. Sure, you could make some arguments. But I never in a million years would have put it together myself if I had not heard someone physically say it as he did. It really meant a lot to me. And I try to apply that in my relations with my wife all the time. So, if you feel the need to mock people simply because someone modern said a phrase or principle in a manner that scriptures just don't quite convey the same message, you might want to consider that other people may simply learn differently than you do.

It could very accurately be said that Christ, Himself, was "White Knuckled" in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Absolutely. I don't really understand anything of some level of complexity without breaking down all the individual pieces and see what they all do and how they interact. (Gee, I'm beginning to sound like an engineer ). That doesn't mean that I can't operate a car without fully understanding how every single piece works. But it certainly pays to learn about the basic functions of the car and some parts so that you can do common maintenance yourself, while hiring a professional to take care of the more complex and equipment intensive stuff. Not all of us has the proper equipment to do all the maintenance. We can learn about the function and diagnose problems. But some things require equipment and tools that us lay-people simply don't have. And if this simply isn't your area of specialty or innate talent, then it might be wise to not take it apart to find out how it works. You may not be able to put it back together.

Never said it was. Military purposes for uniforms is not the subject here (except for Traveler). I never said otherwise. But when they are misapplied... well... they're misapplied. If you're talking about "pedo-grooming" yes, I get your point. But what other efficient word is there to describe the same thing? So, just work with me a bit on terminology. Surgery is on a completely different plane. Not even close to dress and grooming. No need to conflate them. OFF TOPIC!!! This could mean a wide variety of things. I don't see a problem with these things unless there is much more to it than what you've written. One could take this statement to be hypocritical. I know several women in my ward (my wife included) that simply like to wear knee high boots. They like the look. They like the comfort and function. They like how they can work well with many different outfits without having a huge collection of footwear. They simply like it. Is there something wrong with that? You apparently don't like wearing a tie. I like ties. They're fun. I even started wearing a waistcoat. I just like it. I'm not trying to look fancy or opulent. It was a $15 waistcoat. I just like it. Is there something wrong with that? But you seem to take pride in the fact that you didn't wear a tie and you felt slighted when some people didn't seem to appreciate that at church. Yet it seems like you're turning your nose up at those 30% women. So, what's the difference between your attitude towards these 30% women you described, vs what others did to you because you didn't wear a tie?

Deconstructing...