popatr

I would view it as my duty to tell the attorney. I'd feel conflicted if I felt sure that I was signing someone up for more abuse

clbent04: Late to the game, but here are my thoughts. In LDS doctrine, the bar for salvation (resurrection to a wonderful kingdom of glory) is pretty low; it only requires what you said, an acceptance of Jesus Christ in the spirit world prior to resurrection, when he is amply/unmistakably revealed. Yes God is a saver not condemner, even including people you yourself would rather not see saved. But you say, "Ah, but they don't get the celetial kingdom!" So what? Who says they even want it? "These will I make my rulers." Does everyone want to be a congressman? Would we call them condemned for not getting chosen as a congressman? No! (A better example would be those who were chosen to help Moses administrate the children of Israel but it is less familiar to us) Attempting to use your same flavor of language, the terrestrial kingdom is for people who have a good condition of their hearts but don't have faith in Christ, in spite of some imperfect but sufficient exposure to that light. (only God can determine sufficient exposure but we shouldn't deny it). Or to mimic the language of the doctrine and covenants, they are the honorable men of the earth but who were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus. The terrestrial kingdom is awesome salvation. So I don't really think you should be afraid to accept the importance of sharing and accepting the name of Jesus in this life. Sure it is sketchy work with all kinds of mixed results, but that's kinda the point. God is broadcasting light to us and we get to find out how much we like the light, and reflect and act out the same light fairly accurately. Of course I must acknowledge that the name of Jesus is not available in human language at all places and times. I must also acknowledge that this is no barrier to God; as his light goes out and we respond to it, there is surely ample evidence in the life of every person whether they have a portion of the celestial which can build into a fullness. What I think is ALWAYS true, is that the celestial person must love God and not just morality. I think this is obviously necessary. Why are they more rewardable than those with simply good hearts? I think it is because they know perfectly well that however good their hearts are, they are far inferior to God; and if they were to lessen the fervency of their devotion to Him, they would be slowed or stopped in their progress. People might latch onto a certain morality and utterly corrupt it. They might multilate thier children in the name of love and tolerance. They need to worship Jesus instead; he could have helped them implement their morality correctly.

I think the Nephite apostles' requets to Jesus, just before his return to heaven, is instructive. 9 of the 12 requested that 'we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom.` after they had `lived unto the age of man`. I don't want to be more sure than I should, but it sounds like they are talking about a quick death at a fixed age which is old enough by their standard. They have no desire for exceptionally long lives, much less to have it miraculously sustained even though God could do so perfectly, far better than any doctor. I am assured that this attitude is OK and righteous. Therefore, I believe you don't need to fear that God will be upset with anyone who chooses not to extend their lives. However, we also have 3 of the 12 who do want to stay alive and serve until the end of the world. Jesus makes it clear that this is even better. Therefore I'm persuaded that it is fitting and proper to strive for life as long as we can tolerate it and can serve God. You should feel very very called to this world as long as you have children with a strong need for you. If you want to be as good as the three nephites you should probably feel called to this world rather longer. If you are leaving when you could stay, and are called to stay by children etc then I guess I do see that as probably displeasing to God.

My wife's favorite grandpa was on dialysis. Being on dialysis is a considerable drop in the quality of life by itself, but in time he started feeling worse because of whatever. He decided to end dialysis. He may have lived much longer but I'm convinced it wasn't unrighteous.

As this is based on gpt4 I suspect some worldliness/ wokeness is unavoidable. Openai has been working on this thing for a while now, trying to train it up as a good sanfranciscoan who won't talk about dangerous subjects. Adding a layer of gospel on top just makes it a bad bishop I guess

Pure spirituality is just self worship. There have to be rules you don't make up yourself, or it's just about you, not relationships with God or others.

By and large they need firmness not compassion. According to this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4301205/, about 57% of transgender are narcissists. And my own take is: "no duh. And you only caught those who got caught because narcissists don't want to be known as narcissists." I tried looking for rebuttals but I didn't find a serious critique about the study's methods, only ad hominem attacks of it because it came out of Iran. And that's fair enough to distrust a source but at some point if the data is bad you should attack the data not the researchers. Looking for other studies I found another that does support a correlation between GD and other disorders, but they do not specifically mention narcissism; I suspect they didn't want to. They do state that a fair percentage cluster around "Borderline Personality Disorder" which is a condition which, to me, sounds like a close cousin of narcissism. This study does have a very large category of illness labelled "not otherwise specified" where narcissism is probably hiding if they tested for it at all. But it's so obvious to me that by and large, they are narcissists. It's apparently obvious to others too: https://drzphd.com/dr-z-phd-live-videos/why-you-go-through-narcissistic-inflation-during-transition, as this trans researcher says it's perfectly natural given their situation and tries to dress it up in slightly different terminology or indicate it may be temporary. Personally I call BS. They don't just seem narcissitic, they ARE narcissistic and I've never seen this change in my anecdotal experience. --- Narcissists automatically disqualify themselves from unbridled compassion. They manipulate nice people, turn them against each other, and eat them for breakfast.

I think that gender different from sex is quite a new concept and am (so far) unconvinced by anything you've said. To start with, I thought I best go straight to the horses mouth, and ask the lunatics about the "sensitive and correct way" to deal with pronouns in Hebrew. (or rather I asked google and it connected my with the lunatics answers). The top results I could find seemed to indicate that this is problematic in hebrew, as you cannot actually communicate with someone about themselves without risking misgendering them from the getgo. In english we don't have as much problem because "you" (and "they") is neutral, but it appears not to be the case in hebrew. You have to talk to them almost like you're not talking to them if you actually want to ask their pronouns with zero mistakes. Following up my research, I asked if there are any neuter forms in hebrew. The answer I got was NO. There are NO neuter nouns in Hebrew. If the Hebrew language REALLY supported nonbinary I would suggest that they would at least have ways of talking to or about someone without forcing you to place them in a binary by sight. My thesis therefore is that no matter what other designations exist: "barren" or "eunuch" or "blahblah", that these are at best subcategories of their strong binary, rather than extra options for gender. So does a woman start as a woman until we find out she's barren and she suddenly changes gender involuntarily? In general I think it's rather stupid to scrape up a few characteristics that people might be identified by and call it a gender. I mean we can see this play out right now. Pronouns and identities multiply as people embrace their lunacy and want to categorize themselves in random and entirely un-useful ways. "Clownself" and whatnot. I mean, if we are just scraping together mildly sexual categories maybe we should add "harlot" as a gender identified in the bible. ---- I did some more research into both hebrew and greek, with the aid of google translate and round-trip translation (english-hebrew-english or english-greek-english). Neither language really has a word for gender. The hebrew word suggested for "gender" translated back as "sex". In greek, the round trip word was "genus" like in animal classification. If the Hebrew language REALLY treated these categories as other genders I think they would have a question to which the appropriate reply might be "man" "woman" "barren" "eunuch". ---- I think the claim that gender is a social construct is pretty lame. Do animals have gender roles? Are they social constructs or did God (or nature) create them. Obviously it's patently absurd to claim that gender has nothing to do with our basic human nature. If someone says that gender is only emergent with intelligence, then we have to ask the next question: What are the consequences of thinking ourselves our of our designed behavior? Sometimes it's good. God gives us commandments and helps us create more stable families with better outcomes. But only by God's wisdom do we know what actually is better for us than nature. Sometimes it's bad to fight nature. We are sick mentally and physically and socially because some wise-guy generation decided that it was a good idea to leave both God and nature in the dust. I think it's clear that gender identity ideology is totally harmful and this is probably detectable scientifically: but not while people are compromised by their false religion.

My child in seminary does not have two teachers

Teaching at the same time? That's... Weird

I take it as given that there are imperfections, as we were warned was possible. I think the above posts are true but I want to add a warning label to them. I think it's a good attitude to consider ourselves MORE fallible that the scripture writers, and hence we will make more mistakes by having interesting insights than by keeping the scripture boring and at face value. I've got a line of apostates at another forum who drive that point home.

nice!

I'm with you there. I don't want to live with animals but everyone else in my house does. Fundamentally, a housecat is pretty poor company and makes it harder to go away for a few days. A dog is better company but a bigger pain in the butt so all in all I'm glad we have a cat if we must have something.

This touches tangentially to a discussion I recently had with my mother-in-law about some of my uncles who had recently deceased. Both refused to act their age, and one in particular was climbing ladders and pruning trees long after it was really safe for him to do so, to the chagrin of some around him. I admire that. In my not very humble opinion, not even his own kids have a right to tell him (a ripe old man) to stop living in a way which was not dishonorable and brought him happiness. In spite of his possibly risky choices he died naturally and in fact probably far later than if he had acquiesced and settled down in his later years.

My cat has GREAT joy in going outside and it would seem cruel to me to deny him, even if his life is shorter and riskier because of it.