Dravin

You may have been, I wasn't. I think you mistook my aside as a comment on the general topic at hand. There is a reason my initial post, in this particular exchange, talked about "in American society" rather than 'in The Power of Everyday Missionaries.'

OP, I think I need some clarification, I'm not sure if: 1) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple. 2) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple. 3) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments before you go to the temple. 4) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments 5) Something else.

It's kind of a rock and hard place situation. If someone perceives you to be using short words or simple phrasing because they think you think anything else will be over their head then they'll think you are patronizing them. If someone perceives you to be using larger words and more complex phrasing because they think you think they won't be able to keep up and you'll win through verbosity and confusion then they'll think you're elitist and arrogant. When truth be told you can simply be writing in your normal prose, or normal for the situation*, without either motivation. *If one is engaged in an intellectual give and take on a nuanced subject one tends to use a different register than they do for sharing their favorite flavor of chips.

I understand your words, but not your overall point in response to my initial comment as they don't address it. That fact that your husband is gung ho about football has zero bearing on the propriety, in American society, of discussing religion in various contexts versus the propriety of discussing football in various contexts. Nor does it mean your hypothetical did not include a reference about talking about football, to wit: Does this mean your analogy was solely about him talking about football? Nope. Of course I never claimed it did. I responded very specifically to a specific portion of your analogy by saying it's worth noting that there isn't equivalency between talking about football and talking about religion in certain contexts in American society because the propriety of the two topics is not the same. Unless the chapter includes a discussion on the propriety, in American society, of discussing football versus religion in various contexts, it also has zero bearing on my comments concerning the issue. You seem to be trying to make a point that The Power of Everyday Missionaries is not just about talking about Mormonism, that it's about a more inclusive package of behaviors about having the Church infuse your life and come through in your interactions with other people, this doesn't particularly bear on my earlier comments. I feel like it's the equivalent of: You: "Being healthy is part of an comprehensive lifestyle. Like eating healthy, such as eating more fish and less beef, and more non-starchy vegetables. Also exercising regularly..." Me: "It's worth noting that apex predator fish can have higher mercury levels than some other fish." You: "I'm not saying that being healthy is all about eating fish." Me: "You did mention eating fish which is why I pointed out that some fish have higher mercury levels than others." You: "Health isn't just about eating fish, it's part of a comprehensive lifestyle." Maybe we're just talking past each other? So to be perfectly clear: I am not saying, and did not say, that The Power of Everyday Missionaries focuses solely on talking about religion. I am not saying, and did not say, that your analogy focused solely on talking about football/religion. I am saying, and did say, that the propriety, in American society, of talking about football versus religion in certain contexts is not the same. I am saying, and did say, that your analogy did mention talking about football, which if we do a find/replace, makes an equivalent hypothetical that includes talking about religion. I am saying, and did say, that #3 creates an issue with equating talking about religion with talking about football in American society. I am not saying, and did not say, that #5 makes it a worthless analogy or explanation of the concepts in The Power of Everyday Missionaries.

That's also hyperbole. Are you unaware of what hyperbole is?

To everyone involved, are we disagreeing over the application of context and audience to our social interactions? Or are we disagreeing over how to apply context and audience to our social interactions? If the former, I think there is a bridge I just can't cross as even as a full time missionary I applied context and audience to my social interactions while actively proselyting. If the latter, that's understandable.

First, your husband is not a sport. That hyperbole out of the way, your example of your husband include him talking about football. If, as you suggested, we replaced NFL with Mormon we end up with a hypothetical in which one is talking about Mormonism. Which is why I pointed out the propriety of the two topics is not identical in certain situations, football is considered an acceptable topic under broader circumstances.

I'm not talking about the likelihood that someone wants to listen to you talk about football versus religion, I'm talking about the how in many business/professional environments and situations talking about your religion, which is not the same as being religious, is considered unprofessional whereas talking about football is not. My point is not, "Never bring up your religion, people may judge you." my point was, "One cannot simply do a "find replace" of talking about football with talking about Mormonism because the propriety of these things for all situations is not the same, for example professional interactions."

While I support the general idea, not turning certain aspects of yourself on and off, it is worth noting that in American society the propriety of discussing football versus religion is not the same. It's socially appropriate to discuss football in a lot more circumstances than it is to discuss your religion. This applies less to truly social interactions than it does to things like professional or professional-social interactions but even then it is still applicable. We could argue if it should be the case, but it is the current status quo.

I'm not asserting that you are, just supporting The Folk Prophet in how the post comes across. I'm American and the tone of my posts tends to get misconstrued often enough, so I'm not stranger to such misunderstandings. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for me is to just say, "That wasn't my intent.", if they continue to insist it was then you move on. A key thing to note is that The Folk Prophet did give you the benefit of the doubt. He stated how he was perceiving your post and then acknowledged he could be misunderstanding you.

While I'm a fan of not hiding you are LDS, or even just religious for that matter. under generic euphemisms at a certain point it becomes forced if it just isn't particularly relevant to the conversation. It becomes the equivalent of the guy who takes every, "How was your weekend?" as an opportunity to give you a blow by blow account of his D&D session or basketball game. That said you can't really fault a principle for breaking down when taking it ruthlessly to extremes in a hypothetical. So the general idea, don't be afraid to talk about what you actually do and don't shy away from the fact you're Mormon and you believe certain things is good. Just exercise a degree of sense in to whom you apply it and to what extent. When my fellow geology students ask why I don't drink I respond with a simple, "I'm Mormon." or "Religious reasons" because I'm not ashamed of that and if they want a deeper explanation they'll ask. If I was responding with, "Oh, I follow the Word of Wisdom.", which most of them don't know about by that name (or at all), it'd come off like a fishing expedition or that I'm so myopic I can't image people don't know what that is. Obviously, if I'm having a lunchtime discussion with them on the topic of religion then it is more likely a good time to mention and explain the Word of Wisdom. So in short, it's a good idea, just try to exercise (un)common sense.

If it's any consolation her reply comes across as defensive to me, so it's not just you.

I bite my tongue, depending on my mood I bite it a lot, and when it seems I'm about to bite my tongue in half I try and step away. I step back and try and remember that not everyone is going into conversations with the same goals. Some folks go in with an idea of a back and forth, an engaging of each other's ideas, and other go into them with the idea of simply sharing ideas without necessarily trying to engage them. So when the engager joins a conversation with a sharer it's a good thing to try and give both the benefit of the doubt, the engager isn't trying to be mean and argumentative and the sharer isn't trying to be disingenuous and dismissive. I'm usually the engager but depending on my mood I'm the sharer.

Clarifying my statements is having one's knickers in a twist?

I'm inclined to agree with you, the rush of new characters was a result of having to establish the universe in which the story is set. Also it is hard to have a continuity when you don't have history to draw upon so the episodes understandably trended towards the episodic. Now that they have an established universe and continuity they are drawing upon it to create long term and short term story arcs and the characters can relate to each other in more nuanced ways because they now have histories, both with each other and singularly.

You still have a wesen of the week* aspect but they have developed an ongoing story arc that gets put front and center every few episodes and simmers in the background quite often when it isn't front and center. They have a developed continuity now where, when appropriate, you see references back to previous episodes. It's a much more established universe and it is by no means just, "Nick beats up a wesen." these days. *It's worth noting that the wesen of the week is usually not a character, they're a challenge for the actual characters to overcome.

If this is a response to my comment, I wasn't talking about the shows. I was talking about your idea that to be a fine dining chef one needs to know how to pair wines with dishes in some specific fashion based on personal tasting.

I'm disinclined to call the actions of the 1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve paranoia. I can see the argument but I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The board was updated.

Nope, my response to an invitation remains the same whether it is on TV or if it's just a friend inviting me. Depending on things I might attend the wine tasting, but I wouldn't sample the wines. That would be what sommeliers are for. Now I understand why a restaurant may expect you to know, I think Olive Garden expects some knowledge of wines from their managers (based on anecdotes from friends), but I don't see why being a fine dining chef necessitates a detailed knowledge of wines (or beers) for pairing. Also, I suspect there is a fine dining = French or Italian bias going on here. A fine dining hallal chef for a heavily Muslim influenced cuisine wouldn't necessarily be expected to know how to pair alcohol with their dishes. This is no, "You're on TV!" exception for the Word of Wisdom. Why? One doesn't need personal knowledge of the way an uncooked wine tastes if one is using it for something like deglazing a pan or coq au vin. For such applications the house red is being used, not the $500 bottle of wine chosen for it's unique subtleties of flavor profile. Also, there are cuisines that don't use alcohol, or at the least aren't expected to in the same way a French chef would be expected. Once again I think there is a bias that chef = makes Italian and French food, I think people are forgetting that other cuisines exist.

Shows I watch: Big Bang Theory: Beefche and I see similarities with the quirks of Leonard and Penny, and their relationship, that we identify with. Also, we both have our Sheldon traits.Grimm: We both love Monroe, though we're kinda sad that they upped the gore after the first season. We don't know if it was a change directorial vision or if they simply had the budget to do what they wanted to do all along.Chopped: We like trying to think of practical solutions to the basket ingredients and it kinda gets us to flex our culinary thinking. Restaurant Impossible: We like that unlike Mystery Diners Irvine isn't afraid to tell off the owners when it is their doing that is causing the problems. Agents of Shield: We both like the works of Joss Whedon, and we both love Coulson as a character. Sherlock: The almost psychopathic treatment of Sherlock is interesting. Survivor Man: It isn't a regular series anymore but whenever a new episode pops up I make sure to record and watch. There are others, but those are the only shows that if DVRed I will end up watching at some point.

It brings to mind the 'parable' of the man and the flood, who expecting the Lord to save him, turns down practical means of (physical) salvation because he expects the Lord to save him through miraculous means. Truly, the Lord could use miraculous means to protect the leaders of his Church, reading some of the experiences of Joseph Smith I have no doubt about that, but he may still expect the Leaders of the Church to be wise to the dangerous of the world. I have no clue if they are: 1) Always 2 short. 2) Always 2 short because of concerns of attacks against the leadership of the Church. I'm just saying that if they are I don't see anything incongruous with them taking practical steps. President Monson has bodyguards and my thinking concerning them is similar.

Here is the thing, Dahlia's example isn't someone who can't get baptized in a font or under the standard accommodations, but someone who cannot be immersed in water. Accommodations can be made for the former, the only accommodation that could be made for the later is baptism not by immersion. Anyone have any examples of that?

Concerning baptism being done by immersion: Link: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.3.8 Link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.73-74?lang=eng# If someone has heard something from a General Authority or some Church manual about the acceptability of baptism not by immersion I'd appreciate a pointer to it.

It sounds like, then, that what you are terming political correct ideology/thinking is what I'm terming the impulse for the politically correct speech. In that case, I think yes, taken to extremes politically correct thinking and ideology can be detrimental to blunt/frank speech.