Dravin

The world, and story, certainly has the richness to draw upon. The question is: Action or horror?

As far as receiving and giving gits I tend towards smaller, more numerous, thoughtful gifts rather than large grand gifts*. I react primarily to the thought involved and when I'm out shopping and buy Beefche some minor nicknack or treat the primary message I'm trying to convey is, "You weren't with me but I was thinking of you." *Not that I'd turn down a new car if one of you wants to give me one.

I'm suspecting their expressions were somewhat priceless.

Just saying you laughed afterwards is kinda ambiguous. Was is nervous laughter that a tense experience was over with? Or maniacal laughter over the joy of burning an animal? I'm kinda inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, for much the same reasons Suzie does, that it was the former rather than the latter, which makes the fact that she laughed about it less distressing than it might be made out to be. The use of what ever chemical was at hand reads as desperation and confusion rather than some sort of intentional torture. Which leaves us with burning the rat, which while a poor choice was probably done out of a desire to not get close to it rather than sadism. The short of it? Scared, confused, inexperienced women making poor choices rather than sadistic serial killers in the making. I see the regrettable decisions that you do CaleB but not the malice you seem to want to ascribe. If I was in a hypothetical position to counsel them I'd tell them that they either need to put their big girl pants on or buy snap traps in the future (though probably not phrased exactly like that) if they can't muster up the gumption to dispatch it themselves quickly and cleanly.

I would love to see a Mechwarrior movie (or even TV series if they have decent production values).

Ownership exists as a social construct, it's quite easy to demonstrate the existence of this social construct (for instance laws). The existence of God as a social construct is also rather easily demonstrated under the same burden of proof. I think you'll be hard pressed to find even the most militant atheist arguing that God doesn't exist as a social construct. If you know of someone arguing for ownership as some sort of objective property of matter (or energy) absent scientific proof who demands scientific proof for the objective existence of God I'll join with you in saying they are being inconsistent.

Student asked what 1+1 equals, no mention of biology in answer. News at 11.

Actually we don't agree on that but, and please don't take this as some sort of rhetorical twist, I do understand why you think that given the premises you hold (the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ). Please note that I wasn't trying to claim empathy is only possible through such means. My position is only that it is more difficult to understand someone else and where they are coming from without such means. Additionally while my post followed MoE's mention of empathy my focus was in understanding. It occurs to me you were probably focusing on the vicariously experiencing portion of the concept of empathy, and thus our big disconnect. I was focusing on the understanding portion of empathy as it would apply to this context. It was a failure on my part to clearly delineate just what I was talking about.

Just what am I suggesting? Your phrasing suggests you and I mean different things when we talk about understanding where one is coming from. For instance, I wasn't trying to suggest any sort of omniscient level of understanding of someone's life and thought history, though maybe I'm reading something into your phrasing that you don't intend. Given your premise, and assuming you do understand what I mean when I talk about understanding where someone is coming from, it would indeed be fruitless, and even if fruitful it would be pointless, for us to make an effort in understanding where the other is coming from. As such, backing out of the conversation makes sense.

It's not irrelevant if the goal is understanding where someone else is coming from.

Indeed, if you are unable to step outside of your own paradigm, even if just temporarily, it hampers your ability to understand anything outside of your own paradigm. You can see this here on the boards, even though it's generally the more intellectual side of things and less emotional. People unwilling or unable (either consistently or as a momentary lapse) to see if something has internal structure and validity but instead insists on imposing their own premises when arguably trying to understand something and then being baffled that, "Your reasoning doesn't make sense with my premise!" This doesn't mean one has to accept the other person's premise as valid, but if you can't or won't apply their premise in a sandbox then it really hampers understanding.

Poe's Law in action.

I do appreciate that it's open field instead of a drop box, that's nice.

Indeed. Take the examples given of 'people off the deep end', ask them if they'd rape someone or if they'd shoot a man in Reno just to see him die if they could get away with it. Is the response a no? Sounds like restrictions to me. I think it's important to understand that different restrictions aren't the same as no restrictions even if one might be inclined to find the different restrictions inferior or insufficient.

It's worth pointing out that the phrasing in the scriptures is "vain repetitions". I don't doubt some blessings on the food qualify, but I would think the solution would be to stop the vanity not pray less given the scriptures also talk of praying always.

Given the premise, that one isn't in control of one's beliefs, the reasoning is pretty straight forward. Being held accountable for your beliefs, if you don't control them, is akin to being held accountable for other things you don't control such as eye color or nationality. If your response to the prior is, "But we do have control over our beliefs!" you're getting hung up on the premise, if you try an filter his reasoning through a premise he's not using then the end result will continue to be confusing because it's like trying to make an apple pie using beets for filling.

Instantly flip a switch and believe whatever the switch is flipped to? If that is the question, then yes, your 'experiment' is relevant. However... That we can will what we believe, and that we can instantly will what we believe are not the same thing. Your experiment address the idea of if one can simply flip a mental switch into believing what one might like, it does not address if belief is volitional in nature. I think you'll find that while some on the board will argue for a volitional foundation to belief they aren't likely to agree with your 'flip a switch' premise.

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment.

Understanding her better is good, I'd be careful in how I approach it though. If she feels he's trying to debate, argue, or accuse her back into the Church it'll likely lead to hurt feelings. Also realize, that if she's kinda hazy on these things or hasn't thought of them, things may crystallize for her when you bring them up and discuss them and you may not like her conclusions. So while he'll probably go in hoping for the best, he should brace himself for conclusions or answers he very much doesn't want to hear. It may just be, for example, in analyzing her beliefs she concludes she doesn't believe in Christ anymore because the feelings she associates with testimony are something she no longer trusts and they also apply to Christ.

Despite MoE's bit of smarminess the newsletters won't be replacing the Ensign (which is available online already if one wanted to avoid a paper copy) and unless I've missed something over the years, they won't be replacing monthly paper newsletters coming from the First Presidency. So it's unlikely this will reduce paper use. I suppose if they are gung ho enough about monthly newsletters such that they'd do them even with the costs involved in a hard-copy newsletter it could be considered a paper reduction measure, but from the sounds of it they aren't deciding to save paper by burning electronics, they just decided to burn more electrons.

Well, I can kinda see it as not pointless if it was part 1 of a series, with the inclusion of others coming in the second part. Picture this: Meeting 1a: X people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective. Meeting 1b: Y people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective. Meeting 2: X + Y people get together and discuss the issues that came out of the previous meetings. Note, I'm not saying that is indeed what was planned, but I can see it as not completely pointless to discuss race relations among yourself first before including others.

Missionaries certainly aren't trained to do so, so any ability to do so is going to be something the missionary brought with them into their service. In short, don't expect them to be any more able to engage in that arena than your average member of similar background and inclination. They're also limited in their ability to look things up, the mission library is limited so even if Elder Smith was of such a bent he doesn't have access to the book shelf full of books on the subject at home. If you want to discuss the contents and implications of a particular sermon given by Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses the missionary won't be able to go back and study it out to be prepared for future discussion unless they know a member who will lend it to them (and many a mission president would be unhappy to know that is going on). The same would apply to online materials, unless things have changed.

I suspect because such an outlook is comforting. If only people who don't have a strong testimony fall away/leave the Church then it reinforces that they, presumably in possession of a strong testimony, won't find themselves in similar circumstances. There is thread debating the doctrine and principles behind the idea that, "It can happen to anyone." that'd probably give you some insight into the thought processes going around. Putting aside the doctrine and principles that may be behind either viewpoint (for they have their own thread) the idea that someone with a strong testimony can have such a quick turn-around is frightening, and attaching conditions that don't apply to you is comforting in the face of that.

Missionaries are taught to use of Book of Mormon to respond to objections: Link (Preach My Gospel, the missionary study manual): https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-is-the-role-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng I don't know if the "Chat with a Missionary" missionaries are fresh arrivals at the MTC, but if they are I could understand how a new missionary who is learning how to deal with rejection and internalize Preach My Gospel might respond similarly to what you've recounted. Particularly if you throw in the fact that online communication losses a lot of nuance so it's easy for tone to be misinterpreted (either way).

So it sounds like you want more restraint in when lethal force is used, not some sort of stupid "shoot to wound policy." Which is fine, it's just your initial phrasing could have been read either way.