a TEST is coming

[laronius]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

I would phrase this as: one does not have to compete to have a successful outcome.

I'm going to develop a new card game called Zion, where if you can't get your opponent to win then you have lost. That way we can be perfectly competitive and Christlike all at the same time.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is irrelevant to the idea that choosing the greater of two evils is foolish.

 

As I understanding evil - choosing any evil is foolish.  As I understand the course of things – only choosing that which is good, right and true is the only way to avoid foolishness.  That is – if avoiding foolishness actually is the intent or goal when making choices.  What do you think is more foolish.  Making a bad choice or justifying a bad choice and not wanting to change it?

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

I'm going to develop a new card game called Zion, where if you can't get your opponent to win then you have lost. That way we can be perfectly competitive and Christlike all at the same time.

Those are called co-op games where all players either win or lose together.

see https://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com, https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/65244/forbidden-island

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, Traveler said:

As I understanding evil - choosing any evil is foolish.

We have a definition issue here. I am using the term 'evil' broadly to mean anything less that ideal, which I believe is the meaning of the idiom. As mortals a great deal of our choices are less than ideal and wisdom is, quite often, choosing between the things that are not ideal.

[askandanswer]

By way of interest, without in any way seeking to further the discussion, I note that the exact same quote used at the start of this discussion was also quoted directly by Elder Benson in the Saturday morning session of the October 1963 General Conference

 

Those of us who think ". . . all is well in Zion . . ." (2 Nephi 28:21) in spite of Book of Mormon warning might ponder the words of Heber C. Kimball when he said, "Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills . . . but I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming." (Heber C. Kimball, 1856. Quoted by J. Golden Kimball, Conference Report, October 1930, pp. 59-60.)

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:04 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

We have a definition issue here. I am using the term 'evil' broadly to mean anything less that ideal, which I believe is the meaning of the idiom. As mortals a great deal of our choices are less than ideal and wisdom is, quite often, choosing between the things that are not ideal.

 

Would you (using your definition of the term "evil") then characterize your choices in posting on this forum as good or evil?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Would you (using your definition of the term "evil") then characterize your choices in posting on this forum as good or evil?

It is not "my" definition of the term evil that is in question. It is the meaning of the idiom. Generally speaking, when someone says, "I have to choose between the lesser of two evils", they're not talking about literal "evil" (as in choosing between Hitler or Stalin). Sometimes, of course, that is the case, but generally, I believe, the phrase is more typically used in situations such as having to choose a job that pays well, but has a horrible commute, or a job that's close but doesn't pay as well. Neither situation is actually literal "evil", but the idiom still expresses the idea.

Do you not know this?

If you think the idiom only means literally choosing between Satan or Satan Jr. then, yes, I agree...we should choose neither.

As to your question -- I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[anatess2]

On 9/22/2017 at 3:31 PM, zil said:

I would phrase this as: one does not have to compete to have a successful outcome.

I disagree with this.

The competition provides the challenge.  The goal of each individual event is to win.  Of course.  The other guy is your measuring stick.  So when you consistently beat the other guy you know where you measure against his skill set.  This tells you what you have become proficient at.  When you lose, you get to learn where you're deficient so you can improve on it.  Usually, in competition against another person/team, you win some you lose some.  Or you win all the time but it gets harder to win. This is because the other person/team is also bettering themselves.  If you always win easily and never lose, then you've outgrown the competition and you have 2 choices - find another group of people that can give you a challenge (level up) or find another skill you can work on.

Now, if you don't compete at all, then you won't know if you've become proficient at it.

I'll give you an example.  My son is crazy good at shooting targets with a pistol.  We thought he was "da bomb" and I even told @mirkwood he's Olympic material.  He joined a pistol club and went on a friendly competition with the other boys.  He did okay with the rest of the group but half of them were leaps and bounds better than he is.  So now my son knows what is possible and what to work on..

My other son is crazy good at jiujitsu.  He joined this jiujitsu gym and there was this guy who is a year older than he is who he can't beat.  They scrimmage twice a week.  They've been in that gym over 5 years and my son has never beaten this guy, not even once in a scrimmage.  So then they both joined a tournament.  Both of them won gold medals in their group.  My son learned that everybody else he fought were half easier than his friend at the gym.  His friend told him that he couldn't believe he won gold.  He said his game has improved so much because my son pushed him constantly.

That's really what competition does.  It's an environment that creates a challenge (either staged or organic) so everybody - winners and losers all - gets better.  

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I disagree with this.

I figured that out a long time ago.  I respect your right to disagree.

[The Folk Prophet]

Interestingly enough, I tend to agree with @anatess2 on the competition thing. Maybe not quite as adamantly...but...well...there we are.

 

Edit: Not to say it's interesting that I agree with her alone (as if I never agree with her or something)...but just that typically when I disagree with her its in company with @Vort and @zil and the like.

Edited September 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

Just now, zil said:

I figured that out a long time ago.  I respect your right to disagree.

That's a given.  But I commented for the discussion.

So, let's discuss if you're willing.  Name a particular skillset you're working on (or just want to talk about) and tell me how you know you've become really good at it.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Interestingly enough, I tend to agree with @anatess2 on the competition thing. Maybe not quite as adamantly...but...well...there we are.

But that's because you agree with me on everything.  

[zil]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

That's a given.  But I commented for the discussion.

So, let's discuss if you're willing.  Name a particular skillset you're working on (or just want to talk about) and tell me how you know you've become really good at it.

There's no point.  What I see as hard work, you would see as competing against some non-sentient entity.  What you see as competing without "defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same", I see as not competing at all.  We're using different dictionaries.  There's no reconciling that.  And I'm perfectly OK with not reconciling it - indeed, I'd prefer not to try - I think the definitions and positions have been sufficiently explained for everyone to understand.

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, zil said:

There's no point.  What I see as hard work, you would see as competing against some non-sentient entity.  What you see as competing without "defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same", I see as not competing at all.  We're using different dictionaries.  There's no reconciling that.  And I'm perfectly OK with not reconciling it - indeed, I'd prefer not to try - I think the definitions and positions have been sufficiently explained for everyone to understand.

I'm lost.  Let me see if I can understand it.  2 people are playing chess at the park.  When are they competing and when are they not?

Edited September 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It is not "my" definition of the term evil that is in question. It is the meaning of the idiom. Generally speaking, when someone says, "I have to choose between the lesser of two evils", they're not talking about literal "evil" (as in choosing between Hitler or Stalin). Sometimes, of course, that is the case, but generally, I believe, the phrase is more typically used in situations such as having to choose a job that pays well, but has a horrible commute, or a job that's close but doesn't pay as well. Neither situation is actually literal "evil", but the idiom still expresses the idea.

Do you not know this?

If you think the idiom only means literally choosing between Satan or Satan Jr. then, yes, I agree...we should choose neither.

As to your question -- I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I am only trying to understand this thread and your posts to this topic you started.  In particular what you have found as "The Test" specific to you and why you think your are undergoing a test?  Or if in your concern and you vision on the topic is meant for everyone else and does not apply to you.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Armin said:

Yea. Jiu Jitsu does it. But let your son get over to the Karate. It's more elegant and more efficiently. See here:

Karate is a different skillset.  Jiujitsu and karate are not mutually exclusive.  But, if we're talking about what is more useful in the schoolyard or an antifa protest, my opinion is. jiujitsu is more useful.  Fights usually end up on the ground.

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Armin said:

Yea. Jiu Jitsu does it. But let your son get over to the Karate. It's more elegant and more efficiently. See here, only white belt / yellow training of the Sensei Andreas M'arquard's Kikokan style.

He's not in it for sport.  He's in it for self-defense.

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Armin said:

"He's not in it for sport.  He's in it for self-defense."

What else...? Isn't Jiu-Jitsu the same? The video is about Gracie (Brasilian) JJ. (I once practiced JJ about 30 years ago, but the original Japanese style at Tokyo School in Hamburg) But see the techniques and the elegant way of Karate. Andreas Marquard once achieved the black belt in Judo, when he came to Okinawa Karate and later developed his own style. He once was the most feared procurer and hitman in Berlin more than thirty years ago. He went to prison for many years. Later he returned in a mental way and thought he could teach his young disciples in a better way.

 

 

Nothing else.  Just the self-discipline in any Martial Art and self-reliant defense.  Brazilian jiu-jitsu, like karate, is a martial art that fulfills the requirements for self-discipline and self-defense.  When you're getting mugged in a street corner, though, BJJ has more practical uses than karate.  Elegance doesn't matter much.  The video I showed illustrates why.  Most street fights do not start the same way you see in the movies - 2 fighters squaring up making dance-like moves.  Most street fights start exactly how it is in the video - one guy bomb-rushes the other taking him to the ground.  Once in that position, karate is almost useless - as shown in the video.

[mrmarklin]

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:51 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

In 1990 in an Ensign article by Gordon B. Hinkley (First Presidency Message) he quotes Orson F. Whitney quoting Heber C. Kimball:

“I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1945, p. 446.)

What is (or are) this (or these) test (tests), do you think?

These tests are day to day life.  Who lives a life devoid of problems?  Not even the very wealthy have this luxury.  Steve Jobs with all his wealth could not prevent dying young, although he tried.

 

It's what one does about one's problems that define who one is.

Recently some have dealt with tropical storms, flooding and total loss of family, friends and every kind of material goods!  Many, if judging by the news have dealt well with these problems.  Others probably not so well.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

These tests are day to day life.  Who lives a life devoid of problems?  Not even the very wealthy have this luxury.  Steve Jobs with all his wealth could not prevent dying young, although he tried.

 

It's what one does about one's problems that define who one is.

Recently some have dealt with tropical storms, flooding and total loss of family, friends and every kind of material goods!  Many, if judging by the news have dealt well with these problems.  Others probably not so well.

How do these day to day life problem tests make it so we can't tell a saint from an enemy of God?

[mrmarklin]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do these day to day life problem tests make it so we can't tell a saint from an enemy of God?

I meet people all the time in my profession.  People can be very evil and hypocritical, it's not always easy to discern this. 

Witness the Utah followers of such charlatans like Denver Snuffer .

These things are not problems in life?  I submit they are common. 

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I meet people all the time in my profession.  People can be very evil and hypocritical, it's not always easy to discern this. 

I've noticed the opposite in life. 

The person who I think is nasty, mean, hypocritical and a snot can often times have a heart of pure gold. And much too often we get caught up in thinking everyone is evil or hypocritical just because they are human. 

in all honesty, everyone I know (myself included) is hypocritical to some degree or another. No one practices what they preach or believe 100% of the time. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Nothing else.  Just the self-discipline in any Martial Art and self-reliant defense.  Brazilian jiu-jitsu, like karate, is a martial art that fulfills the requirements for self-discipline and self-defense.  When you're getting mugged in a street corner, though, BJJ has more practical uses than karate.  Elegance doesn't matter much.

Karate isn't just kata with no practical applications, just like BJJ isn't just practical applications with no forms.  Every art has three parts; principles, forms/kata and practical applications.  Teaching only a single aspect is a disservice to the art.

It's like all the people teaching tai chi who never show how those movements are meant to be applied, or what principle is embodied in each; every form, and every movement between forms has at least one, and often three applications in combat.  You learn them slowly for the same reason you should learn the forms in any art slowly; the more perfectly you can do it at an extremely restrained pace, the less imperfectly you will do it at full speed, and the more effectively you can isolate the principle within each movement so that you can apply it even when the movement can't be done perfectly.  

Same with aikido and judo; in many dojos, you'll learn the techniques but not the principles behind them.  If there is a self defense element to the class, you may learn practical applications still without the principles that would show you how a perfect kata becomes a real world application, even though it may not retain much resemblance to the textbook form, so there's still an unfortunate disconnect between kata and randori that gets in the way of being able to improvise upon the principles when uke doesn't give you an attack you're familiar with.  Karate and taekwondo tend to have a similar problem, with kata being taught and competitive applications explored, but not realistic defenses for dealing with those trained in other fighting styles.

At least within the Kaze Uta Budo Kai system that I'm familiar with, aikido on a practical level is taught somewhat like good tai chi; do it slowly until you can do it perfectly, then do it progressively quicker against a cooperative opponent, then learn the principle you're applying and go back to slow for randori against an opponent who's allowed to resist and improvise, and ultimately as fast as can be safely done against as much resistance as uke can offer without getting himself hurt.  Even a 5th+ degree who can move as gracefully as any tai chi master at half speed in a demonstration may start looking like an epileptic pit bull shaking a rag doll in full speed randori, but watching the slow motion later you can identify the principles being applied.

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Nothing else.  Just the self-discipline in any Martial Art and self-reliant defense.  Brazilian jiu-jitsu, like karate, is a martial art that fulfills the requirements for self-discipline and self-defense.  When you're getting mugged in a street corner, though, BJJ has more practical uses than karate.  Elegance doesn't matter much.  The video I showed illustrates why.  Most street fights do not start the same way you see in the movies - 2 fighters squaring up making dance-like moves.  Most street fights start exactly how it is in the video - one guy bomb-rushes the other taking him to the ground.  Once in that position, karate is almost useless - as shown in the video.

In the video you posted...That fight didn't appear like a real fight, rather a fake fight.  Why?  They aren't throwing punches that are allowed to really connect from what I saw in the video that was posted.  It probably is in a setting, and there is something against throwing a full on hit?  It was a little odd.  It may have been a fight from a competition viewpoint (aka, competition rules...etc.), but not a real fight as in...no rules, no holds barred.

They definitely weren't doing a street fight (even UFC doesn't allow what would happen in a street fight these days).  That's dirty fighting, hitting below the belt, throat and eye gouges, ear rips, biting, nose uppercuts (which can kill someone instantly if hit the wrong way...or right way...depending on who you are) and weapons.

I'd say in a bare fisted fight, Judo, jiu-jitsu, or any other art that focuses more on grapples and wrestling probably will have the upper hand after the first two or three blows.  When you get to dirty fighting and weapons though, normally Judo and other grappling arts start falling behind and other arts that incorporate weaponry more into their styles have an upper hand in comparison. 

The basic rule of fighting is (all things equal, or the fighters are of equal ability), the man with the sword is ten times better than the man without.  The man with a gun is ten times better than the man with a sword (that is if they are both equally skilled.  If one is ten times better than the other, for example a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu who is ten times better than the guy with the sword...well...then it's not going to happen like that, but if they are BOTH equally skilled...).

Edited September 27, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In the video you posted...That fight didn't appear like a real fight, rather a fake fight.  Why?  They aren't throwing punches that are allowed to really connect from what I saw in the video that was posted.  It probably is in a setting, and there is something against throwing a full on hit?  It was a little odd.  It may have been a fight from a competition viewpoint (aka, competition rules...etc.), but not a real fight as in...no rules, no holds barred.

They definitely weren't doing a street fight (even UFC doesn't allow what would happen in a street fight these days).  That's dirty fighting, hitting below the belt, throat and eye gouges, ear rips, biting, nose uppercuts (which can kill someone instantly if hit the wrong way...or right way...depending on who you are) and weapons.

I'd say in a bare fisted fight, Judo, jiu-jitsu, or any other art that focuses more on grapples and wrestling probably will have the upper hand after the first two or three blows.  When you get to dirty fighting and weapons though, normally Judo and other grappling arts start falling behind and other arts that incorporate weaponry more into their styles have an upper hand in comparison. 

The basic rule of fighting is (all things equal, or the fighters are of equal ability), the man with the sword is ten times better than the man without.  The man with a gun is ten times better than the man with a sword (that is if they are both equally skilled.  If one is ten times better than the other, for example a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu who is ten times better than the guy with the sword...well...then it's not going to happen like that, but if they are BOTH equally skilled...).

The video is not a fight from an altercation.  It's a fight set up for learning.  The fight is set at the gym.  It is a no rules fight - that is, the fighters are not held to the competition rules of their style.  Basically, the karate fighter (who just recently heard about BJJ) was trying to understand how a BJJ fighter develops his offenses/defenses in a practical-use setting and wanted to see how the karate instincts match up to it.

Yes, weapons always provide an advantage.  But, dependency on weapons can be a disadvantage.  Therefore, Filipino martial arts principles is to master an open-hand defense system then learn the stick as a weapon.  Lots of everyday items can be improvised into a stick - a tree branch, a flashlight, a pipe, a mop, etc - even in places like a Federal building where you get to leave all conventional weapons at the door.

Edited September 27, 2017 by anatess2