Carborendum

Yeah, sometimes it's like that. One campaign the GM completely railroaded us throughout the entire campaign. He gave us just enough down time for us to do whatever we wanted to trick us into thinking he gave us a lot of options. Then I figured out that during our "down time" we really had nothing to do and nowhere to go. I finally made it clear what was happening when our NPC Dwarven fighter was getting ready to do something crazy and I got everyone to grab him to keep him from giving away our position. The GM said that he evaded all of us. Me: But you didn't even roll anything. GM: Yeah, I didn't have to. He's pretty quick. Me: In just the last town you said that he was slowing us down from catching up to the bad guys because dwarves are not known for their speed. Now he's so fast that he gets an automatic evade on everyone in the party? GM: Yes. What's the problem? We ended the campaign that week. The GM was actually in trouble with debt collectors so he moved out of state a few days later and we never saw him again.

That sounds like a combination of two investigators on my mission. But maybe a bit different. Even in such a lowly state, neither woman ever thought of humbling herself. One of them died suddenly proudly smoking away when we told her that it was affecting her health. Apparently it was too late anyway. The other simply didn't want to see us anymore because she knew XYZ about God better than we ever would. Never knew what happened to her. Indeed. Are we really supposed to do this, though? I understand the need to forgive. And we truly should forgive all. But does "forgiveness" also mean we have a responsibility to take care of them? There's this thing called "toxic relationships." Some are so severe, that simply "having to deal with them" in any way has psychological & spiritual effects on the receiving end. Gratefully, I don't have to make that decision for my father. I don't know what I would do, honestly. But if push came to shove, I'd like to think I would at the very least help him to a state-run facility. I think I'd go crazy if I had to have him in my home for more than a couple of days.

I agree with general the sentiment. But I'd add something to this for the "bad parent" scenario. We bring honor to "the family name" (and by extension, the parents) by being honorable people who improve the world around us. In my many travels, I was in a particular ward for about two or three months. During that time, many members got to know me, and I them. Now, I don't mean to toot my own horn. I'm just saying this to make the point. One sister came to me and said (complimenting me for some traits I seem to have exhibited, and because she thought of me as 20 years younger than I was) "You must have had some wonderful parents to raise you to become the man you are." While I appreciated her effort at giving such a grand compliment, I couldn't help but choke on it considering the kind of people my parents were. I put on a polite face and simply thanked her. But after she left, I couldn't help but think, "I am bringing honor to the family name in spite of, not because of, my parents."

It sure sounds like it here: Sounds like it to me. I disagree. There is great strength in acknowledging the truth about what we know or don't know. -- Agreed. The fact that we can act in faith without pure knowledge can also provide strength. -- Agreed. Even though you have put conditions and explanations and all the qualifiers you have done, you're underlying premise is that none of us "know" there is a God. -- I disagree.

Let's see: Romney says Russia is trouble for us. The Democrats laugh at him. We're not in the cold war anymore. Hillary colludes with Russia to play around with the election against Trump. First they laugh at people saying Hillary colluded with Russia because we're not in the cold war anymore. Then they accuse Trump of colluding because he simply must have in order to win the election. Because, of course he did. Russia is the big baddie now. Trump says some condescending things about Putin and makes threats against Russia for some military actions that Russia took. Somehow this is considered colluding with Russia. Biden is President and Russia is emboldened to make threats against America. Russia is not a problem.

First of all, if the target is unconscious, it is considered an automatic coup-de-grace. So, it should not have happened that way. The "resistance" thing reminded me of an adventure of my own. There were bats flying overhead. As a psychic, I could detect that they were somehow evil/cursed bats. Several members of the party had the ability to create a sonic boom (through magic, items, psionics, etc.) So, someone blasted them, causing disorientation among the bats. This continued a few times until the GM said that it no longer worked. He did this because he wanted to get the campaign going again. And it was important that we follow the path of the bats. So we got there and found a giant man-bat creature. We did all sorts of attacks but simply could not get through the guy's defenses. The GM got mad that we hadn't used sonic booms. We reminded him that he declared that our sonic booms stopped functioning. So we couldn't use them. The idea was that we weren't supposed to play around with a bunch of harmless bats. But when we got to the big boss, we'd use the boom. Well, that didn't happen.

I'm getting more concerned about Russia right now.

I don't know how this would apply to anyone else, but we have an interesting quirk in our family. My oldest brother is gay. But he tries to remain celibate even though he has left the Church. He also happens to be pretty dang wealthy. So, it was always understood that he'd be the one to take care of our parents in their old age. By doing so, he was the only one who neither left nor cleft (see what I did there??). However, life goes where it goes; and does what it does. My sister happened to marry into money. She was always the one who was great with money to begin with -- a financial genius (even though she could barely do more than basic math). Then she found a guy who was a fabulously wealthy heir. Don't get me wrong. He's a great guy. And he's extremely handsome (blast him). But given her financial situation, she's the one taking care of our father in his old age. Mom died last year (I mentioned that in other threads). Dad has early stages of Alzheimers. And she's able to take care of him.

I'll take a stab at this. I realize this is pretty weak and not fully fleshed out. But this is off the top of my head without a lot of pondering and research. So, take it as you will. One thing that many people notice about the covenant line from Abraham was that there was the first born, and there was another who was the heir. The Biblical examples, however, point to some loss of birthright due to unrighteousness for that transfer to take place. Such was not the case with Joseph Smith. Why? First off, Alvin died fairly early on in the process of the restoration. So, he couldn't do it. Why not Hyrum? I think that maybe he could have. But Joseph needed protectors when he was younger. And Hyrum was in a perfect position to do so. Additionally, each of Joseph's counselors (with the sole exception of Hyrum) eventually betrayed him (and the Lord). Hyrum was the only one who remained constant. As young as Joseph was, would it have made much sense to have an even younger brother be his counselor? No, usually, we have counselors who have enough wisdom to... you know... give counsel to the presiding officer. So Hyrum, as an older brother, provided a very important role to the one who would be the prophet of this dispensation. And the birthright went to Joseph out of necessity rather than righteousness. What does this have to do with "Jr."? Well, I always found it odd that a father would name his THIRD son after himself, rather than his firstborn son. Does that seem strange to anyone else? ---- To summarize, I believe there was a pattern repeated throughout these covenant lines. There was a birthright that was lost (for unrighteousness in ancient times -- incl. Lehi's sons). And there was the final disposition of the birthright to a younger son. For some reason this pattern keeps repeating. I don't fully know why this pattern is so prominent. But it seems that when a pattern repeats so much when the issue of birthright is brought up, there must be some significance to it.

@Fether, I absolutely believe that many people get up to the pulpit and say they know when they don't really. They just have a lot of faith. I absolutely believe that many people get up to the pulpit and say that they know -- and they really do For you to judge them on their testimonies is pretty presumptuous. Give people the benefit of the doubt. It would be more profitable for both you and them if you would ask for a private conversation with any of them or all of them (one at a time) and ask how they got to the point where they "know" because you'd like to get to that point too. Whether they are really there or not should not be your goal. You're not their judge. But whatever they say, prayerfully consider how you might emulate their paths and see if it helps you to "know."

I guess I missed the fact that Elder Soares was from Brazil. I was listening to the recent video on "How I Hear Him." This latest one features Elder Soares. It was interesting that it was not in English. And at first I thought he was speaking Spanish because that was what I was expecting. And the languages are so similar, that one who speaks both can easily mistake one for the other. Then I thought, "Gee, he really has a funny accent." Then I realized that he wouldn't have an accent. It's his native language. That was when I realized he was speaking Portuguese (Brazilao). Go figure.

You implied it here: The take away from such a statement is that if anyone else does the cooking it isn't "homemade". Otherwise, "I do the cooking because..." is a false conditional.

For those who don't know. The left is Jenna Fischer (from The Office). The right is Maura Tierny (from Liar Liar). They look different in their most recent photos. But when they starred in their respective shows, they looked VERY similar.

I'm the breadwinner. So, she takes care of taxi driving and shopping. Most everything else we do together. Everyone in the family helps to cook, clean, and garden. Everyone in our family loves to cook. We all have our specialties. We don't "take turns". Someone gets it into their head, "I want <this> for dinner. Can I cook tonight?" It seems pretty sad that your husband can't cook. It's odd that you put yourself forth as a liberated woman and you hold to the stereotype that only the woman can cook a homemade meal. I almost find that... insulting. No one can match my spaghetti, chili, or home-made ice cream. I used to make the best bread. But my wife caught up to me years ago. Then my eldest son and eldest daughter each figured out some trick to breadmaking. They both bake a more tender loaf that I can. And they won't tell me their secret. The kids all do their own laundry. The wife does the laundry for the two of us because she enjoys being able to watch a show while folding so she can unwind. I was the one doing the laundry for the whole family when I was a kid. So I was happy to let her do that since she seems to enjoy it. While we both "garden", I do more of the "yard work." I don't think she knows how to start a lawnmower or edger. She takes care of drywall and paint. I take care of mechanical (HVAC) plumbing, and electrical. But we do mix this somewhat. I never wanted animals, but she wanted chickens. She wanted them. She can take care of them. I also teach the boys that it is the man's job to take out the trash -- both literally and figuratively. So, we have that on rotation (we have a LOT of trash cans in our house). I set up a chart based on house zones and week of the month.

Yup. Just what this world needs. More instruction on how to get people angry over petty issues while making ourselves feel morally superior for being above all that. Thanks, that felt really good.

There is some common notion that it is almost "unfair" that so many people get the opportunity to accept "without faith". i.e. they arrive in the Spirit World and find that they will all of a sudden have full remembrance of the entire plan before the world was. And they will obviously accept. That just isn't so.

I'm going to give you a different perspective on the three degrees of glory. You can accept it or ignore it. What I'm about to say is somewhat supported by the scriptural references to what qualifies us for which degree of glory. But it is ONLY a perspective. It is not meant to be doctrinal. However, it is that perspective that you seem to be digging into. So, here goes: The "lost" (Perdition) crave darkness and eschew the light. They will not accept light even when forced. It is too contrary to their nature. Telestials desire the darkness, but will submit to the light if forced. Terrestrials like the light, but only follow it as long as it isn't too difficult. Celestials crave the light. And they will do anything and everything to go towards it. There is nothing in this perspective about "dependence". There is nothing about "control". There is nothing about "ability". It is entirely about our desires and our choices. No matter what we do, we are still bound by choice and consequence. Just because we cannot change the consequences of our choices, does that mean we have no abilities? No, we just don't have the ability to change the fundamental truths of eternity. So, no, you're not going to be able to sin to your heart's content and find yourself in Celestial Glory with glory added upon your head forever and ever. But you'll probably be very happy in the Telestial Kingdom, because that is what you really wanted in your heart.

Yes, they are wrong to believe that. They have not made and kept covenants that have been made by authority with the power which binds in heaven and earth. Just because ordinances are done for them, doesn't mean they will accept those ordinances. And if they don't accept them in mortality, they probably won't accept them in eternity.

So, this past week, I've slowly been getting my taste back to normal. Yesterday was the first time since this began that I was able to eat a full meal without wanting to throw up. This morning I had a nice omlette with all the trimmings. It was yummy. I haven't had any kim chee because we're all out. . But we'll see about next week.

And I'm certain that many other sects have couples who feel that their marriage is for all eternity as well even if they don't believe in any power of the temple. Doesn't make it a covenant by priesthood authority. The handbook also emphasized that marriages performed by bishops in our chapels (back when that was allowed) were "civil marriages only". They were not considered "religious marriages" as far as the Church is concerned. That didn't stop people from thinking they were.

Oh... my... kim chee. I thought something along those lines was happening in the middle of the last recitation. But, didn't quite expect that.

It's a historical legacy that some people still consider important. The rising generation has little understanding of that history, so probably not. My version of history: 1) Either hundreds or thousands of years ago (depending on who you ask) there was religious "marriage" and there was simply "taking" a wife. This played out in reality in any number of ways. But there was certainly a difference (at least to those who understood the difference). 2) This carried over into the culture of the United States which was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian tradition. Even until the 1970s and somewhat into the 1980s, the sentiment was that if you had a religious marriage, then there was some benefit. There was a different cachet (thank you, @Just_A_Guy) the couple had because of a religious marriage. 3) What you describe is simply the LDS version of it. A temple marriage is different from a non-temple marriage just because it was in the temple. 4) Today, people only consider the temple marriage as a "sealing". The legal marriage is just a nice afterthought. But the older generation felt differently. God sanctioned this marriage in a way that is different than two people wanting to shack-up. The latter considers marriage to simply be a "piece of paper" that can easily be torn up and thrown out. But a temple (for time only) marriage is still a type of covenant with God. It is not a "salvific ordinance". But there is a seriousness and spiritual element to the covenant being made that the piece of paper simply doesn't have.

I just realized just how apt a metaphor this is. We will undoubtedly fall into a phase where it seems like we've lost. We will feel such loss that we may very well offer up the prayer of finality that Capt Rogers did at the end of Infinity War. But the Lord sees a lot farther than we can.

It's all a series of chess moves, folks. We're in the endgame now.

I'm sure you have. I just haven't, myself. But you're experience makes me wonder about some people.