Dravin

PEBCAK* is also a good one. *Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard

My comments were directed at The Folk Prophet.

You seem to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, implying that political correctness stifles or is opposed to blunt speech. I disagree, one can be just as blunt using developmentally challenged, African-American, and police officer as one can using retarded, black, and policeman. If there is a fundamental connection between political correctness and 'the death of blunt speech', I'm inclined to attribute it to a shared impulse rather than cause and effect. I'd argue that impulse in moderation is a good thing, however if taken to excess it can stifle blunt speech.

There are people who seem to think that separated equates divorced and behave accordingly, so conceptually reminders that such isn't the case aren't crazy. Not knowing exactly what he said or what was going through his mind none of us here are going to know just what he meant by it, if it was intended as a reminder that while separated you are still married, or a more literal reminder of the Law of Chastity. Ultimately if you want to know exactly what was going through his mind you'll have to ask him. That said, I'm not aware of any counsel that separated spouses need to refrain from sexual relations with each other.

There are these things called records, they let people gain information about times and locations in which they were not actually present.

I know that parents like the say things like that, and in the contexts such statements are delivered it is probably honestly meant, but fundamentally for your parents to literally be incapable of being disappointed in you means they have no expectations of you. That\'s arguably a good thing if we\'re talking about the size of your salary, or the genres of music you may listen to, or if you are good at playing sports, or if your 3rd grade art project rivals famous artists on merit. It\'s quite arguably bad if we\'re talking about murdering homeless people under the overpass as it means your parents either have really low expectations for you (we can\'t really expect Lakumi to not murder homeless people), of their parenting (we never really taught him not to murder homeless people so how can we expect him not to do such?), or they think murdering homeless people just ain\'t no thang.

It\'s working for me now. You caught me checking the boards real quick on my phone before turning off the lights and going to bed, if I was still up an about I would\'ve checked it on the laptop for you.Interesting side note: My post from my phone properly handled apostrophes, no slashes, but posts from the laptop still have the issue.

I can get in on my phone. I don't know if that means the issue is resolved or if it just wants to let me in with my phone but not the laptop. It's late, I'll check in the morning if the mystery isn't solved by then.

For some reason the board is saying I don\'t have permission to view the LDS Gospel Discussion forum, when I click the link I get an error page telling me I don\'t have permission to view it. I accessed it just fine, and posted to it, a few hours ago but now no luck. When logged out I can access the LDS Gospel Discussion just fine though. I tried to PM Pam instead of cluttering up this forum with bug reports, but the software won\'t let me PM Pam. I don\'t know if that\'s a bug or if PMs just aren\'t up and running yet.

Other than my own, 0 for the record, I can\'t see anyone\'s warning points.

While the font could be better, for me it\\\'s the contrast of just black on white. I much prefer a light grey or tan as a background. All the white while surfing the board and reading threads is a little too much for my preference. I\'ve had to resort to killing the brightness on my monitor if I\'m going to spend much time on the site.

Mwahaha! A new avatar for me!

Age is a fun one. Not allowed to be baptized until you are 8? Not allowed to be in nursery until you are 18 months? Not allowed to go on a full time mission because you aren\'t old enough? Age based discrimination baby!

Yes, I\'m finding the format unpleasant to look at.

Responding directly to the poll question: I put I was ambivalent because my position is that I support the Church's decision, regardless of what it is, and the abolition of Relief Society or other organizational changes doesn't change that support. In short, while I may have opinions concerning how some individuals choose to act based on their idea of if women should be ordained, or not ordained, my position is that the core issue is out of my hands. If God, through the leadership of his Church, reveals that women are to be ordained, or not ordained, and there are attendant organizational changes, or no attendant changes, then I support that decision. It is neither my priesthood to decide who is ordained unto it nor is it my stewardship in the Church to decide how it is organized.

Note to self: Maureen must have been bitten by hyperbole as a kid or something.

If it's reasonable really depends on the information to which he has access, if the country's intelligence gathering organizations are picking up credible information concerning such a plan then it'd be perfectly reasonable to be concerned about such. Are they picking up such information? I haven't the foggiest.

Not specifically, that is to say I don't think people think the OP is asking us to share aspects of the endowment ceremony which we explicitly covenant to keep sacred. In general though, yes, I think the OP is being perceived as asking for us to share a class of spiritual experiences that we're not comfortable sharing in a public forum, or even in more private circumstances, because they are sacred experiences intended for personal edification and strengthening and not necessarily for public dissemination unless prompted by the spirit (a very important qualification). To be fair to the OP, I don't think that was necessarily what they were going for, but the i.e. provided kinda nudged it into that territory.

Because the OP is being perceived as specifically asking for highly unusual, personal, and/or powerful experiences. If the OP had simply asked for people to share personal experiences without nudging things in that direction I expect the response would have been quite different. It's one thing to ask of strangers in a public place, "Tell me the good God has brought into your life." it's another thing to ask, "Tell me and everyone here, or who may ever come here, your most personal and unusual spiritual experiences, experiences like being present for a resurrection." If the OP was simply asking for us to share our testimonies that is not how they are being perceived by the people you are referencing. Edit: One thing to keep in mind PC, is that every endowed member of this Church has covenanted to keep some things we learn in the temple sacred, to only be divulged in their proper time and place. That highly personal, powerful, and unusual spiritual experiences are not necessarily to be shared as a matter of course is something reinforced by not just the talks like the one I referenced above but also by the temple liturgy.

For me it's the element of public protest. If they all wore armbands, or a specific color or style of cardigan as a sign of visible and public objection to Church policy I'd disapprove just as much. Heck, it doesn't even have to be clothing, if people were organizing Fast Sundays where they all deliver their testimonies using Yoda syntax or Klingon or something I'd disapprove. I think some members having grown up in a democratic tradition where such actions are perfectly acceptable forms of communicating disagreements and objections with their leaders forget that the Church is not a democracy. It's a kingdom, and the mechanisms for bringing concerns, disagreements, or objections to leaders are different.

Wikpedia even has a handy list: List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't expect any other outcome.

I enjoy the language of the KJV, but I freely admit that is most likely because of a couple of factors: 1) It is what I grew up with at home and in the Church, this removes the common barrier of unfamiliarity for those being introduced to it later in life. 2) It matches the vernacular of the other standard works, which combines to make it 'the sound of scripture'. 3) LDS tend to use a different vernacular with prayer as well, so it sorta fits together as a reflection of a change in mindset for me. I recognize that it isn't necessarily a shift in mindset for others, but for me, the shift in language is tied together with a shift in mindset, even if it isn't an overwhelming one. Scripture uses a different vernacular than my everyday life, and to a lesser extent so do my prayers. It acts as a subconscious semi-conscious signal that what I'm dealing with isn't the usual secular and mundane. I realize this could be taken to extremes, such as insisting all prayers and scripture be in another language to further heighten the difference. I think, in all honesty, such would work but at some point one need to consider if such efforts are creating a barrier to interaction with scripture, and prayer, and thus why I don't think more everyday vernacular in prayer or scripture translation is somehow wrong.

I didn't see it. I suspect most here on the site haven't seen it, either due to choice or lack of opportunity.

I agree, and I think focusing on that latter loses a lot. Not just from people being reluctant to simply share such things with anyone and everyone who might visit this thread, but because I think the middle ground experiences are often much more applicable. I feel prompted to discuss my feeling the spirit at a Catholic Mass to those who may argue that we believe all Christians are devoid of truth (or more often when a member is having a flair-up of anti-Catholicism) a lot more often than some other experiences that are on the latter end of the spectrum.