NeuroTypical

Humorist Dave Barry has a notion about gender equality that I think holds more water than folks on both sides of the issue might wish. He suggests we take the total number of top-echelon positions of power and authority, and divide that number by the total population of men. (In this case, GA and above vs. population of LDS men. In doing so, we learn than any single man has the same chance of obtaining one of those few positions as a woman does. Statistically zero. Or, in terms Snow can relate to - no matter how right he is, he ain't ever gonna be prophet. He'll be lucky if he can make it to High Priest before someone runs him over with their Soccer Mom SubUrban assault Vehicle. LM

Off the top of my head: Outside the home: Peer suicide, drug addiction, mental issues (like cutting and depression), school violence (not bullying - more like rape and beatings and worse), teen promiscuity, teen pregnancy, and terrible overwhelmingly powerful peer pressure. Inside the home: Lack of decent male and/or female role models and authority figures, blended family issues, having to bounce between mom's and dad's places, incest or other abuse issues, pornography, and everything in the above list. If you can make the sligtest dent on even one of these, with even a single kid, then your efforts will be worth it. LM

People, especially teenagers with still-developing maturity and long-term decisionmaking centers of their brains, will occasionally make decisions based on short-term criteria, without the desire or willingness to understand the long-term impact.I don't find it that hard to understand at all. Now, if you want something I don't understand - how come you're against a permanent disfigurement, but a temporary disfigurement is ok? LM

Yeah, there's a certain appeal to being a mega-rich doomer/prepper. But unfortunately, my paycheck only allows me to bear the label "preparadness enthusaist".

Now, it's not that I wanna defend Keynes or anything like that, but isn't just about everybody? From the vast depths of research I've done on the subject, (which consists of watching ), it seems like Keynes and FunkyTown rule the day, and all the people who are right are in the minority.LM

Go on your mission and write her an occasional letter if you want to.

Yeah, 'visiting' my wife throughout eternity would sure stink.

Of course, I'd give it to my bestest buddy on the whole of LDS.net - Loudmouth Mormon.

I try to follow Pres. Hinckley's example when reacting to naughty nookie news from folks I consider my political enemies. It makes me sad. And the only real news here for me, is that I really don't want my daughters looking into the nighttime hotel massage trade as a career. But then, I already didn't want that, so actually, there's nothing in this story for me. LM

Because your question is worded similarly to any number of ages-old antimormon cut-and-paste criticisms. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. I'm happy taking you at your word, that you're just looking for information. But we're a little 'once-bitten-twice-shy' around here. It's like when someone walks into a room full of Jews and asks them what they think about who killed Christ - they're going to be a bit touchy and on guard. See, following a claim of innocence with an accusation, is sort of what's making some of us touchy. Here is a chapter from an introductory Sunday School course on the subject - perhaps it can help. But basically: So you see, one thing about us Mormons, is we have modern revelation that occasionally pretty straighforwardly clears up confusion on certain topics. Absolutely. If you're interested, there are no shortage of sources of information if you want to know all about them. Chapters 38 and 40 of the link above, for example, give a very brief overview. A book called The Holy Temple is available for eight bucks on Amazon.com, including shipping. Amazon.com suggests a dozen other books for people interested in the subject, with names like "Endowed from on High: Understanding the Symbols of the Endowment" and "Prepare Now for the Temple" and "Temple Worship: 20 Truths That Will Bless Your Life" and "300 Questions LDS Couples Should Ask Before Marriage"Yes indeed, a new member should understand that LDS folks are big on temples. And there's absolutely no good reason for a potential member to keep themselves in the dark about who mormons are or what we do. But if you're looking for quickie message board answers about some pretty deeply held and sacred subjects, then you might be a little dissapointed in our ability to provide them. Hope this helps, LM

I grew up being taught MightyNancy's take on things. I've since done a 180. I'm no longer a victim of guilt due to birth or owning fruits of hard work. I no longer fear the threat of being labeled with no end of insulting monikers, from uncaring to bigot to selfish to evil. There is nothing wrong with demanding people follow the law. There is nothing wrong with refusing to accept those who don't. If laws are unjust or insufficient, fix them. The MightyNancies of the world, bereft of anything resembling a logical counter-argument, will only be able to fall back on their unchristlike, unrighteously judgemental, uncharitable insults. Phooey. I've never said "screw you" to anyone in need. But as every year goes by, I say it more and more to stupid arguments. LM

No kidding. Everyone knows it's Alma that is impossible to slog through.

Nope. My wife will always be the boss.LM

My claim to LDS apologetics fame: I once spanked Voigt and Chris Cain (the screen writer) on the nationally-syndicated Hugh Hewitt AM radio talk show. I was on hold listening to the show for almost an hour, and was almost brought to tears by the powerfully moving patriotism coming from the interview with Voigt. It's an interesting feeling, calling someone to the mat publicly while at the same time feeling strong respect for a different aspect of the man. LM

I missed that, Ray. Good on ya then!

Hi Jason! Glad to see another repentant sinner on the board.

Those two examples are worthy of bringing to the bishopric's attention. You took appropriate action. And here is where you're tempted to grab some stewardship that isn't yours. Unless you get called to the YM program in some capacity, let that part of it go. If you hear more, then talk to the Bishop directly. Oh yeah. I was exec sec in the Bishopric for 5 years. Stuff like this comes up all the time. It really does. Interesting matters I watched the brethren grapple with:* Bro so-and-so seems a bit too 'huggy' at the mutual activities. * Varsity coach whatsisface gets waay too physical in an altercation between two boys, siding with his son, and almost gets himself arrested. * Folks getting all upset and offended over someone and threatening to pull their kids from activities (or church entirely), unless the bishopric does [insert armchair quarterbacking here]. Some of the offenses are very understandable, some appear to be big overreactions from hypersensitive mommies and daddies. How is this best handled? By letting the Bishopric do it's job. They do discuss such things, and prayerfully consider these matters, inviting the spirit to influence them as they search for the right decisions. Sometimes, the spirit seems to overrule common sense, and nobody quite understands why for a while, then it works out. You have stewardship over your kids. If they understand racists and bigots exist and are not swayed by encountering one trying to be funny, then kudos to you, dad. You're raising good boys. Part of kids growing up, is learning how to deal with various kinds of unsavory characters. LM

We all pick avatars on this board, and follow the guidelines. There could be guidelines for the digital license plate idea too. With the avalanche of customized designs of existing plates available now, I'm sure there are already guidelines.

Actually, you just can't in your ward. I've been doing it for years.

I think I see your problem. I haven't walked into either in a decade, and I'm perfectly happy.LM (Gets his stuff to hang on the wall free or almost free from lds.org)

So, ok, but what does an anarchist society do with its anarchist members who wish to visit unspeakable acts of horror on other members of the anarchist society? Because these people exist in every society, you know...Anarchism allows a common law of respect for others. What do you do with the people who break that law, and how do you do it to them? LM

I don't see this nearly as intuitively as Onhech.People take duties upon themselves, for reasons good or bad. Sometimes for selfish reasons. I have duties at work, so I can make money. There's nothing inherent to Duty that places it higher than reward on any scale I can think of. Love is an emotion, and emotions are tricksy and sometimes false. Sometimes relevant, sometimes irrelevant. Love is not a constant, whereas duty is. There's nothing to basic fallable error-prone emotional love that places it higher than anything else. Jails are full of bad guys with mommies who love them and would gladly do anything, legal or illegal, to get their poor helpless babies away from the bad jail people. Divorced people occasionally have bitter lists of the dumb things they chose to do for love. I don't see anything wrong in working for one's own 'enlightened self-interest' (that's the term a professor at BYU assigned it). If God wants what is best for me, why am I supposed to suddenly feel guilty for wanting what's best for me? I strongly reject that statement. We're fallible, agenda-driven, blinder-wearing, error-prone humans. There's nothing about strong emotion that makes us perfect. This sort of nonsense is what drives people away from the church when they take a look at the distance between themselves and perfection. The attraction of the gospel, is that through the atonement of Christ, ALL mankind may be saved. Even us sinners just doing the best we can and repenting when we fall short, which we all will, no matter how much we love Christ. Even people with addictions and bad character traits and permanent wounds. All that said, that missionary was a jerk, and his reaction was not helpful, destructive, and innapropriate. But there's nothing wrong with shooting for exhaltation because exhaltation rocks. Or in other words, why put up with so much being last if you're not that hot on being first? LM

So, doesn't that mean that you DO see the need to force someone to stay within the bounds of a law that IS protecting someone? Isn't that forcing someone to see the world a particular way?Sorry if this sounds argumentative. In another situation, it probably would be. But I just got back from attending a parole hearing for a guy doing a life sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. Went through a lot of big solid doors guarded by people who have dealt out a lot of force while doing their jobs. The subject is therefore much on my mind. Dood was told he will not be up for another hearing until he at least begins a therapy program they have at the prison. In effect, his release is contingent upon his ability to convince a parole board that his view of the world has changed in ways they want it to change. I'm of the opinion that forcing such a change is just peachy, as we're talking about someone at high risk of molesting another kid if such a change doesn't happen. Thoughts? LM

Hey Foust, I noticed you over at nauvoo.com hawking your product there too. Please be aware of LDS.NET's site rule #13: I see you've actually created a thread here, and made posts in old threads here and here to sell your wares. Individually, these posts sound innocent enough. Taken together, it's obvious why you're here. The non-commercial-website-related post on the very old shotgun thread was a good touch, but it's still obvious why you're here - and you're violating site rules.

So, the veiled threats are ok, but the sin of using all caps is what's disturbing you? Kind of whacked-out priorities there, don't you think?Anyway, to answer your question, your ascii art could easily be interpreted as something pornographic. Imagine for a minute, someone posting some ascii art of a naked person and telling you it's a picture of Jesus. Or how about a tasteless way of calling Joseph Smith a pedophile? You might be a bit miffed. You might do the online version of shouting and showing anger. I'd like to say that most Christians would not make veiled threats, and none of them would try to make good on their threats. But I'm sure some might. However, I am of the opinion that there are a far greater number of Muslims in the world who would consider or try violence than Christians for such an offense. Like a big hefty order of magnitude greater. LM