ztodd

Source? (re 20% vs 2%) Also, food for thought : https://www.facebook.com/notes/joy-m-fritz-the-untrivial-pursuit/a-humbling-exposé-into-the-creation-of-mortality-rates-and-its-impact-on-our-pub/583399998743658/ Also, hello- haven't been back here in a while.

Triple posted- can I delete this one somehow?

Triple posted- can I delete this one somehow?

That artcle says that in England, Wales, and Australia, "about one in every five women has experienced sexual violence at least once in their lifetime", and that in the U.S., it's estimated that "one in five women" have been raped... but something that's kind of funny (given that this is a very serious subject) is that right after that, they show a picture of women holding signs that say "My mentor stuck his hand down my shirt", and "my boss asked me to put on a bikini". I want to assume that picture has nothing to do with the definition of "rape" that the previous statistic is referencing. Sure hope that's a safe assumption. But the label of the picture talks about "sexual assault"-- so it appears they're trying to say those things have to do with the definition of "assault" at least. In the case of the boss asking an employee to put on a bikini- not sure I'd agree with that. Maybe if he threatened to fire her if she didn't? and it's a credible threat? perhaps, but still might should only reach the level of "harassment". Anyway, I was just looking for something to pick on in the article, to play devil's advocate. Heh I better go on record at this point to say, all forms of harassment or assault are very wrong. All are evil acts.

Hiya brothers and sisters, come join this chatzy room- we have couple of people coming in there, about once a day... you can leave a chat message in there- maybe just share a brief testimony or experience about something, or whatever you want. It keeps the chat and never erases it, kinda like this forum... so it can be like a little mini forum, or like a real chat if anyone else happens to join in when you're there.

Bump-ity-doo-dah... Hey everyone, come on in and leave a message in this chatzy chat room...

I still am not always clear on what people mean when they use the term "homosexual". Does it mean 1. one with homosexual feelings, or 2. one who engages in homosexual activity? I always wish people took the time to make that clear. It's already been stated that definition #1 is not considered wrong or sinful, in and of itself. But when it leads to definition #2 then it becomes wrong. What I want to address is the a different kind of activity one might engage in, which might be just as serious, or close to it- which is, the active promoting of the LGBTQ agenda. This type of sin is the harder kind for a bishop to make good judgments about. It's similar to trying to judge a person's level of fighting against the church in other ways - or leading people away from the church. A person might not be a practicing LGBTQ themselves, but if they are actively leading others away from the Church and the Gospel of Christ, the way I understand it, that could possibly be a serious enough offense to disqualify them from a temple recommend. But like I said, it is the harder thing to judge. It might also be the thing that makes us more often appear to some people as being hateful. I sure wish it were not so.

I've heard people say, "I'd like to think I'm a good person..." - just talking about it like it's something that is a goal or purpose for their life, and they feel like they are doing well in that goal so far. I don't take that to be prideful or anything... I think the word "good" in that verse that was quoted, has a slightly different connotation in meaning than the way we use the same word nowadays. Have you heard the story of the Sunday school teacher who asked the class, how many of you feel confident that if you died and were judged today, you would inherit the celestial kingdom? Hardly anyone raised their hand, and then the point was made that we ought to feel more confident about our standing with God. Now... I'm not sure if the point of that story was necessarily that more people should have raised their hand... but the way it was told, I can understand how one might think so. This story might have even been in a conference talk or something... anyone recognize it?

I'm curious about another thread where the lady got offended when she was wearing pants and the bishopric member told her that the sisters usually wear dresses -- I didn't see where she ever quoted him verbatim, or told much about what tone he used, or whatever... but I guess she took it badly. It seems that women are all pretty unified in thinking that nobody should ever say anything like that, for any reason- and that the lady had good reason to be offended. It's still kind of hard for me to understand why that's such a sensitive subject... What would go through a woman's mind if someone were to say that to her? Does she think, oh this person is most definitely judging me? Judging her in what way? I just want to gain more understanding about this...

I think it's ok to think of yourself as a good person. It's possible to think that, and still realize how flawed you are, at the same time. Don't you think?

Cool... I'm trying it out. Everyone join the new group I created on there for General Chat!

Dunno if there's a good mormon chat already that people use- I kind of like chatzy.com - I created a room there, if anyone wants to try it out. http://us21.chatzy.com/53767037555458

It seems so simple and obvious, yet it seems so hard for us to do sometimes. Does "having tolerance for" something or someone mean the same thing as "tolerating" that thing or that person? I know it seems a silly question, but just saying it in that slightly different way, to me, seems to give it a very slight change in connotation. It also seems to have a different connotation when one speaks of having tolerance for a person, versus having tolerance for an idea. Would it be right to say we should have tolerance for people we don't agree with, but perhaps it's ok to not have tolerance for their ideas? I agree we should always (or almost always? keep reading) have compassion and kindness toward others... but here's another interesting question-- is it possible to be kind and compassionate while expressing "righteous anger" at the same time? I think of "tolerance" as meaning more than just being compassionate and kind -- to me, it seems to also imply that we "allow" whatever it is we tolerate, to exist, without any confrontation... or maybe just without a lot of confrontation. I'm actually not a confrontational person-- I like to avoid contention, at almost any cost. But perhaps it actually is not always right to avoid it at ALL costs.

She's a cat alright. Scarediest cat you ever met. I need to snap a shot of the expression she gets every time she hears any little click anywhere in the house. But it's too hard to get near her with my scary phone. Are we off tangent enough yet?

To clarify, are you saying the standards should be the same for getting baptized, as it is for entering the temple?