Carborendum

I'm not sure why you called this a "differing view" when it seems to be exactly what JAG said. Let's set aside the discussion about "distraction" and focus on just the sexual part (doh-oh, that didn't sound like I expected). How about the "chastity" aspect? Women are disproportionately reminded of this but not unjustly so. Check your latest movies, TV shows, supermarket magazines... and you will clearly see that women are "expected" to be more sexual and provocative in their dress and grooming. Most women (even very chaste women) feel the pressure to show more skin and not just be "attractive" but "sexy". Does society press men in the same manner? I don't think so. Instead, they all dress like Justin Bieber. Rather, men are constantly reminded to treat women with respect and obey the law of chastity. From a survey of the last three wards I've been in, about 2/3 of the youth of both sexes could each take some lessons on those respective topics.

If George joined the Klan, then you can be sure it was because a woman was involved.

I did. It was pretty obvious. Couldn't you tell by his accent?

I used to think this simply referred to those whose fathers have died (since it was coupled with "widows"). But I would think that those whose fathers abandoned them would also be included. Churches have historically been there to provide father figures for families where there was none. How well they did at that job has a varied history. Just another indication that having a father in the home is probably more desirable.

Well, growing up it was not considered "destructive." If you have another word that explains the same circumstance, I'd be happy to use it. I recognize that other slang terms have integrated it to mean something less than desirable. But when, I myself, was not raised with it being considered "destructive", just technically correct, I would tend to keep using it as an effective & efficient method of communication. I don't think many people can talk about "testicals" without using that word that makes many people feel uncomfortable. But it is the technically correct word. What else do you want me to call them? Balls? I remember giving a presentation where I had to describe machine parts that were "male and female" to a bunch of college students. They were not familiar with the language and you can imagine the reactions I got. I finally had to put my foot down and say, "That's what they're called, folks. Get used to it." I still feel weird hearing the term "Asian." I grew up as "Oriental." I still consider it more accurate than "Asian." But if it's just as efficient, and understood in today's vernacular, I'm making an effort to use it. So, if you can tell me another word that is not "destructive" that is just as efficient and accurate, I'd be happy to use it. Yes, certainly, different people have different experiences. So what's new?

Again, you're worried more about the language we're using rather than the core of the message being offered. That is the technical word that I was raised using. It was the secular world that made it a shameful thing for the children. It is the religious world that makes it shameful for the parents. My brother (also adopted) was a "bastard" (in the vernacular of my days of childhood). This in no way meant that he was considered less of a person because of it. It did, however, make us not look too favorably on his father who refused to claim him or take responsibility for him. The fact is that this particular brother was probably the best example of a man I've ever known. Even as a youth, he was the one kid that all the adults trusted and felt could handle responsibility well. (Both church and school). I do feel sorry for how you were treated in Catholic school. But that simply isn't how my brother was treated in our church, even though many people knew of his history.

See this guy who doesn't know how many baby mammas he has. Go to 43 seconds.

OK. Traveler, I'm going to try to translate for the benefit of others reading this thread. I think I understand now why you started this trail down the rabbit hole. I may not have it 100% correct. But I think what I'm saying will cast the best light on what you're trying to say. The reason an "emphasis" or "priority" should be placed on biological parents is that they are the first ones to make a decision for the child they're bringing into the world. They have the responsibility before God to raise them. If society diminishes this role of the biological parents, it becomes too easy, too simple to simply give them up for adoption (or worse, abandon or abort). While there are certainly circumstances where adoption is a "better" option, the role of biological parents should first feel the responsibility to take care of their children. As others have said, when the failure of that option is great enough, then adoption is certainly a noble (and often better) option. It seems to have less to do with the link of biology somehow creating a greater bond. It is ONLY about emphasizing the responsibility of the biological parents. And considering how many bastard children are completely ignored (emotionally, spiritually, financially) by either or both parents, we understand that such emphasis is waning these days. I don't think this says anything bad about adoption. But when we diminish the role of the biological parents, we diminish the role of all types of parents.

I had a fun exchange a couple of months ago. My wife and I were trying to get our recommends renewed. We had already gotten with the bishopric. We now needed to meet with the Stake Presidency. It happened to be ward conference one week, so all three of them were there instead of the one counselor that often visits. As they found out we were trying to renew our recommends, one of the counselors came to us and said he only had a minute. He asked if we could do our interview together (in the room at the same time). My wife looked at me because she knew there was something that might make me say no. I was able to confidently look her in the eyes and say, "You know everything about me." She gave me a kiss and we went into the interview room. He only asked the questions once. We both answered "yes" or "no" as appropriate. And at our age & experience, we really didn't have any questions. So, he signed and we were off.

Of course that is the reason. I thought it went without saying. But I think it is sad. It gives the impression that the Church is cowing to the demands of the world. Maybe it is simply a necessary evil at this point. It has happened before (hello, LoM). I get the impression that one mechanism of "the sifting" is by making Church "policy" so loose that only the very faithful will actually live according to just and true principles. All others will simply justify their immoral and sinful behavior by saying, "Well, Church policy doesn't forbid it." He who must be commanded in all things...

Advertising. Now, where is my 25%?

Yes, it does. It makes sense that they will no longer be labeled as PH/RS, while maintaining the fifth (third) session. But to eliminate one of the five sessions because anyone can watch it would mean we should eliminate all sessions because anyone can listen to it. Then when we eliminate it, no one will be able to listen to it. So, we will have to re-institute it again. Yes, it is a non-sequitur. I think we get the intended meaning even if it was poorly worded. There were separate men's and women's meetings because they used to talk to men about treating our wives better. They'd tell the women don't be so hard on yourselves. And it was done in a gathering of largely the intended audience. Now that there is no such gathering anymore, they're just going to say the same stuff in general meetings. Too bad.

Our stake is apparently an exceptional stake in this regard. The Houston Temple President said of our stake that if just three other stakes had the temple attendance that our stake has, then we'd have to build a new temple. Do the math. That means that one stake is doing about 1/5 to 1/4 of the temple work for the entire temple area. (Pre--COVID, of course). Today, though, some people are taking the attitude of "why bother?" Without temples readily available, what would be the reason to have one anyway? Now, I fear that with temples gradually opening, those same people fell into a habit of thinking "why bother?" and will still choose not to have one. The big problem I see in my current ward is that they don't emphasize it enough. They talk about it in bishopric meetings. They ask how to encourage it in other leadership meetings. Then they do absolutely nothing to keep it in our minds. No talks in sacrament. No special Sunday School classes on the topic. No special events. No messages for ministering families. When it comes to leadership encouraging something, the leaders need to do more than what they are asking of others. If I want you to go to level 1 (have a current recommend) then I need to be at level 7 for you to finally see why it is so important. For us, at least, it starts from the top down. They talk the talk. But they don't walk the walk (at least, not to level 7).

Forgiving and forgetting: I truly do exemplify the Savior's own words of a man who has the memory of an elephant. Memories simply do not leave my mind very easily -- especially those that left an emotional impression on me for whatever reason. But the fact is that I do not get to "choose" what I remember and what I forget -- to an extent. Can I be held responsible for something that isn't a choice? I have a quirk that (if it were my choice) I really wish I could bet rid of. It deals with memories that are linked to strong emotional impressions. These could be both good and bad. Whenever I experience a memory trigger, I relive that event in my mind. If it is a bad one, I usually have a "shout out". These often include vulgarities -- which is why I believe I have Tourette's or something similar to PTSD. This tends to happen several times a day with differing memories. I can't really control these. A trigger happens, and my mind goes over it again. No choice. But it happens. It is hard to forget a memory that keeps presenting itself several times a week; for my brain, impossible. What I can do is make an effort to forget the feelings of resentment and judgment. I will do the right thing with my family I'm raising. I will do the right thing with those I come into contact with. I do not use my past as a crutch of excuses to not perform to the best of my abilities. Little by little, my memories will fade (a lot of them are emotionally linked, after all). But many will never fade simply because they have replayed in my mind with each memory trigger for all my life. Not my choice. Just how my brain works. I hope I can change my underlying nature enough that those triggers stop being triggers. I really hope I can forget. But it I really don't believe it is mine to control. I've taken a similar path for my family. Our only contact with my family is with my non-biological sister. As the kids get older, I tell them why we have no contact with my side of the family. They don't know how to take it. So far, most of them simply forget I ever told them. While all my children do express some complaint and curiosity, they don't seem to be affected by it. What I do look forward to is the day where I can actually hope for repentance. I hope for repentance of others. But I acknowledge that I'm not perfect either. While I take some solace in the fact that I haven't done what others have, I still know that we are all sinners and we all need the grace of Jesus Christ. So, by D&C 64:10-11, I continue to ask for the grace to forgive others just as much as I seek forgiveness for myself. And I truly do hope that I can greet my trespassors with open arms in the Celestial Kingdom. May I be prepared to do so. May they actually find themselves there as well.

I have readily acknowledged the chronological sequence from biological to adoptive. What I don't get is this emphasis on why biological family denotes any particular quality that makes them superior to an adoptive family. So I had to think a while about what benefit I could possibly have had from my bio family vs my adoptive one. The only thing I could figure is medical history. That then opens the door to the whole nature vs nurture argument. And that debate simply hasn't been settled in hundreds (thousands?) of years. I've provided my explanation and position on that argument. But it apparently fell on deaf ears. Apropos of this particular side thread, it seems to even out. So while I can possibly accept differences, I don't see either as "superior" in the rearing and nurturing of a child. The reason I have no problem with living a "Plan B" life is that I realize that life is full of Plan B. How many times do we ever make a plan and it turns out exactly as we planned? Sure, we may get to a goal. But we all had to make adjustments as we went. There is nothing wrong with anything being called "Plan B." That usually acknowledges that Plan A did not work. And it also acknowledges that, perhaps, for the circumstances present, it was the wrong plan to begin with. So, a lot of the time, by definition, Plan B was better. Yes, yes, circumstances, circumstances... We all acknowledge better or worse "for the circumstances." I admit that. But I'm pointing out that Plan A almost never works out in life. All of our lives are built on Plan B, Plan C... And that is the path that made us who we are. Big question now is "Why do some believe that biological family is overall superior to adoptive?"

I read that link that @mordorbund provided. I noticed something that I'd thought of. But he worded it so well, I have to point it out. It seems that by being righteously engaged in a good cause is a way of honoring one's parents. Having and raising posterity that will do the same, is to honor our parents.

Good point. My father, even as he was, expressed multiple times to me that by being sealed it was more than a piece of paper that bound us as father and son. It was bound by God. He repeatedly said this because he got it into his head that somehow I felt less loved because I was adopted. What he didn't realize was that I felt less loved because of how he treated me. It had nothing to do with adoption. And it wasn't just him. The whole family thought of me a s some sort of freak. And if I told you why, you'd think I was just arrogant. As far back as I can remember, I never felt any special familial bond with either family. Maybe that was due to my underlying psychology (I tended not to form bonds easily with anyone. - I only learned how to socialize properly in later adult life) or if it was a byproduct of adoption or a byproduct of familial interactions with both families. There just didn't seem to be any reason to consider them any differently than those I know through work or school. The family I'm raising is different because of my emotional, mental, temporal, spiritual, and financial investment into raising them. And I've made it abundantly clear that my bond with my wife is more than special. But the families I grew up in... To tell you the truth, I never wanted to be part of either family. Maybe that's why... well... a lot of good and bad. The sum total of what I can say about what I learned from them was: 1) Work. Work hard and long. 2) Be responsible for providing for your family. So, I give that credit where it is due.

Agreed.

I don't think my wife has ever corrected my grammar.

Regardless of what was ideal or not, the plan for my sister and me was originally to be with our biological parents. When that didn't happen, adoption became the option. Give that description of events to anyone, and the forensic assessment will be that adoption was "plan B" for my sister and me. No, it is not emotionally sensitive to call it a "plan B". But it is a fact. I have the rare position of being aware of what it was like to live in both families. So, consider these facts. My Korean mother fled because my father was too abusive to her. My father put my sister and me up for adoption because he did the math and figured that there was no way he could take care of us financially. He could have just abandoned us. Or he could have dropped us off at an orphanage. Instead, he chose to put us up for adoption. He felt it was the most responsible thing to do. Despite his abusive tendencies, he was aware of the concept of responsibility. He felt responsible for providing for us. When he realized he couldn't, he at least felt enough responsibility to try to find us a decent home so that we would be provided for by others. And in that era MANY Korean kids were being adopted by Americans. One criterion he had was that we had to be placed in a good Christian home. More details on that later. Arguments could be made (they have been made to my face) that he "abandoned us" by putting us up for adoption anyway. So, what is the difference? All the difference in the world. Would it have been more ideal had he kept us? I don't know. I recognize how difficult it is to have nothing and try to support a family. I also know how similar my birth father was to my adoptive father. I also know of some differences. I won't go into details -- too personal. In some ways my birth father was more abusive. In some ways my adoptive father was. There are so many pros and cons between the two homes. But living in America and having access to the blessings of this country is a benefit beyond anything I would have had in Korea. ***** As for being "Christian"... The family that helped us with the adoption told him that my adoptive family were Mormons. He had no idea what that was. But the family told them that Mormons were Christians. So, he felt ok. One of my brothers then decided to look into that faith. He was baptized some time later. To my knowledge, no one else in my birth family was baptized.

Calling me out, are ya? Well, I'll take up that gauntlet. I'm aware of tacking. And, yes, that was the explanation that was offered in the video I mentioned. However, this doesn't really change my point. This alternative actually makes my point. Learning more truths, doesn't invalidate earlier knowledge. It just complements it. But in that in-between phase, sometimes doubts can arise. I still don't think that the demonstration was really doing what they claimed.

I agree. It is simply too easy to just download a Windows version of the same games. I suppose it has the potential to be a collector's item. And it will have a niche market. But I don't see it going beyond that.

Whoa!!! Can you post that on Third Hour?

Yes. We did know it. You understood that with @Anddenex's post. We know "that one thing". But there will always be more things to learn, more things to know. Sometimes we get a math problem wrong, not because what we know is wrong. We get it wrong because of what we didn't know or didn't consider. My daughter was given a math problem with manipulatives. Consider that we had a whole bunch of pennies. We counted and we did the problem just as instructed. We had the right answer according to what we understood. But we made one mistake. The final question was asking for $ not cents. So we were off by a factor of 100. That's pretty far to be off by. We were REALLY wrong. But the fact was that all the fundamental steps we had were things we knew CORRECTLY. It was all correct knowledge. But we just didn't have ALL knowledge. Not necessarily. I think that as human beings, we lean on our physical senses enough that the Lord will use our physical senses as ONE method of leading us to knowledge. We are so used to using our physical senses, it hardly makes sense to ignore them completely if the Lord wants to teach us something. But the point I'm making is a fine one. And I hope I can word this properly. The actual "knowledge" of anything is through the Spirit. If the Glory of God is intelligence, then that glory (which in gospel lingo is "intelligence") is what helps us learn anything. But we're not just talking about mortal brain-power. It is the purity of our spirits and their connection to the Holy Ghost which lets us learn things. I also believe that we cannot learn anything spiritual or mundane without having some degree of humility. And we cannot learn anything without being able to tap into the light that comes from the Holy Ghost. I know, that also means that the worst, most vile soul on earth also has access to a portion of that light. Yes. It does. A portion. This is also why I believe that all mankind can be redeemed to some degree of glory through Jesus Christ except the Sons of Perdition. But those who are completely humble and open themselves to the full Gift of the Holy Ghost will learn the important things of eternity much more easily. And eventually as time is but a memory of eternity, those who rejected the light will have taken away even that which they have. Part of the difficulty of this conversation is that we have very different understandings of what knowledge actually is and how we obtain it. You seem to be looking at knowledge from a very scholastic pedagogical source. That simply isn't how we learn things. Why is it that you can go to a convention of doctors and nurses -- people who should be the most educated people on the planet regarding healthy and unhealthy behavior -- and we see huge smoking areas filled to capacity outside of the convention? Do they "know" it will kill them?