Carol Lynn Pearson's book

[Crash]

37 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I really don't think you , Vort need to say I have no idea about what I say,  Obviously I know something, alot more than you realize about what I say. And to everyone, I apologize if I have written anything that may have been or appeared offensive, that was not what I was trying to do.  I hope you are also not trying to come across that way, as well.  We should all strive to be kinder to each other.

This apology is apathetic.

"I apologize if anything I have written anything that MAY have been or APPEARED offensive."

When you insult a man's relationship with his wife, summarize that he is lustful and doesn't care for his wife's feelings, and then say that you feel sorry for his wife when you know nothing of their relationship, you don't APPEAR to be offensive and it's not open to interpretation. You ARE offensive. 

I came to his defense because I've known him and his wife for nearly 20 years and I will not apologize for doing so. I said what I said about your behavior because I've personally dealt with the exact same behavior and attitude for 12 years on an extremely close level and I recognize it when I see it. So, it gets personal to me when someone uses insults against a friend in what should have been an open and civil discussion. I couldn't care less about this topic but you insulted some very close friends of mine and that's why I jumped in. You didn't APPEAR to MAYBE insult them. You DID insult them. Your apology should be directed to TFP.

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Ok, but protection, is one thing.  What about forcing her to have sex with him?  Protection and marriage are 2 seperate things.   And raise up seed to the dead husband if she doesn't want to have sex with him?  What about that?   Why would Christ say she has to raise up seed to her dead husband through his brother.  For instance, I have a brother in law who is a disgusting human being.  I would never live such a law, ok?  I mean I can understand they had this dumb rule back then that woman just couldn't walk around on there own and not be raped or whatever, stupid, which I think is totally wrong, but the idea that if her 1st husband had no kid that she had to have sex with his brother to keep the family name going is just wrong.  Who cares if the family name doesn't continue, if she isn't comfortable with having sex with her husband;s brother.  For heaven's sake, can't a man control himself where she can be "protected" without having to be married to him?  I mean, fathers and brothers live in houses with daughers and sisters without doing anything inappropriate, don't they?  Of course, sometimes their are disgusting examples where men do go against God's laws and think , say and do things they shouldn't, but for heaven's sake,  I'm sure some women , at least in their hearts, weren't comfortable with the idea.  I'm sure not all the men, though some of course were stellar examples of doing their duty, were not all the cream of the crop, and do you know if any of these women were allowed protection without having to do anything they weren't uncomfortable with, because back in the day, I doubt anyone cared what they thought and made a law to take that into consideration

Didn't you say you  weren't obsessed with sex?

Anyway, different era, different means of staying alive.  Women don't just go become programmers or something to earn money and eat.  There's no money to be "earned".  Everybody has certain duties within the tribe.  The bigger the tribe, the stronger they are.  The more people they have to do the work needed to keep a tribe - gather resources from the wild, form armies, raise children, etc.  "Raise up seed" is to increase the tribe numbers.  To say - "a woman has to have sex with her brother-in-law"... turn that around, "the brother has to have sex with an ugly old hag".  In either case, they do what they have to do to survive.  "Who cares if the family name doesn't continue" is a silly statement.  You're basically saying - who cares if the entire tribe dies!  Just because it offends the sensibilities of one modern woman?  Of course, God will not let that happen, especially when the survival of the Davidic line is paramount to the Birth of the Savior.

Edited March 2, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Crash said:

This apology is apathetic.

"I apologize if anything I have written anything that MAY have been or APPEARED offensive."

When you insult a man's relationship with his wife, summarize that he is lustful and doesn't care for his wife's feelings, and then say that you feel sorry for his wife when you know nothing of their relationship, you don't APPEAR to be offensive and it's not open to interpretation. You ARE offensive. 

I came to his defense because I've known him and his wife for nearly 20 years and I will not apologize for doing so. I said what I said about your behavior because I've personally dealt with the exact same behavior and attitude for 12 years on an extremely close level and I recognize it when I see it. So, it gets personal to me when someone uses insults against a friend in what should have been an open and civil discussion. I couldn't care less about this topic but you insulted some very close friends of mine and that's why I jumped in. You didn't APPEAR to MAYBE insult them. You DID insult them. Your apology should be directed to TFP.

It's tough when you have a personal relationship with people on here. I know I've jumped to the defense of some of my friends before. I think it's best to try and remember that sometimes people will say things that might sounds personally offensive when in reality, that's not what they were trying for.

I'm proud of you for sticking up for your friends-that's an awesome trait. Very rare in this society. 

[jewels8]

I just want to express my appreciation, especially to taking a mature, respectful approach to these topics and am sorry if anything I have posted came across in a negative way.  I don't feel I need to continually keep apologizing over & over again for it, as I already have numerous times.  But,  I will say again, that I do not understand everything, but I do know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.  Mr Folk Prophet , I am sorry if I offended you. I really have know idea anything about you, other then that you are LDS and married, I apologize to you.  I really don't understand why so many on this thread like to be so blunt, but I really do appreciate the few that have been really kind and compassionate and what I feel a Christ-like connection with.  I know I have made some mistakes.  I know people don't usually see a need to change there ways and I can be stubborn too, but I want you all to know that I have always been and am an active LDS member and am a very serious member, I mean, you know how some members go see movies that shouldn't be seen, and tv that shoudn't be seen, and do things on Sunday, the list goes on, I am not saying I'm better than anyone, but just to give you an idea of who I am, I have never b een that way, my spouse is not that way, and our kids are not that way.  We have 4 kids, 2 with special needs, 1 very severe.  He is 17 and like a toddler mentally.  He has high energy and is everywhere, like you wouldn't believe.  The other is high functioning autistic, doing a service mission.  He is our oldest.  Born with a rare congenital heart condition and has a feeding tube and 11 food allergies.  So, I'm sorry if I come across hard sometimes.  Life isn't easy, but its ok.  Maybe if we all get to know each other better, we can be kinder and judge less. Peace brothers and sisters.

[jewels8]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So you deny that you said if God is a polygamist that you really have lost respect for Him, and "yuck", and you would consider even God a legalized adulterer?

 

 

Ok, I take that back.  Sorry

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's tough when you have a personal relationship with people on here. I know I've jumped to the defense of some of my friends before. I think it's best to try and remember that sometimes people will say things that might sounds personally offensive when in reality, that's not what they were trying for.

Saying you feel sorry for someone's spouse isn't trying for offensiveness?

At least when I say something offensive I don't pretend innocence like I didn't know better and didn't mean it. When I tell @jewels8 that she's ignorant and needs to grow up and repent I'm well aware that it will be offensive. I judged, in this case, that the comments and attitudes being thrown out by her merited the response despite the offense. Whether I'm right or wrong in that is another matter. But if I, afterwards, said, "I didn't mean to offend you" it would be pretty disingenuous.

[Traveler]

27 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I just want to express my appreciation, especially to taking a mature, respectful approach to these topics and am sorry if anything I have posted came across in a negative way.  I don't feel I need to continually keep apologizing over & over again for it, as I already have numerous times.  But,  I will say again, that I do not understand everything, but I do know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true.  Mr Folk Prophet , I am sorry if I offended you. I really have know idea anything about you, other then that you are LDS and married, I apologize to you.  I really don't understand why so many on this thread like to be so blunt, but I really do appreciate the few that have been really kind and compassionate and what I feel a Christ-like connection with.  I know I have made some mistakes.  I know people don't usually see a need to change there ways and I can be stubborn too, but I want you all to know that I have always been and am an active LDS member and am a very serious member, I mean, you know how some members go see movies that shouldn't be seen, and tv that shoudn't be seen, and do things on Sunday, the list goes on, I am not saying I'm better than anyone, but just to give you an idea of who I am, I have never b een that way, my spouse is not that way, and our kids are not that way.  We have 4 kids, 2 with special needs, 1 very severe.  He is 17 and like a toddler mentally.  He has high energy and is everywhere, like you wouldn't believe.  The other is high functioning autistic, doing a service mission.  He is our oldest.  Born with a rare congenital heart condition and has a feeding tube and 11 food allergies.  So, I'm sorry if I come across hard sometimes.  Life isn't easy, but its ok.  Maybe if we all get to know each other better, we can be kinder and judge less. Peace brothers and sisters.

 

Seldom is anything in life as simple or as complex as we think it is.  In my profession I am often tasked with testing "things".  It is usually at the boundaries of the extreme where “things” break down and fail.  It is my personal opinion that we learn the most about ourselves and others at the extremes when there is failure (much more than successes) – and perhaps that is part of why we experience fallen mortality.  Sometimes I think we may over judge failure of others and worry too much of it – unless it is our own failure.

Despite the failure – I have never found anyone that enjoys being reminded of their own failures – repentance is only fun and enjoyable when we get to or make excuse to; call others to repentance.  But I am also most impressed when someone is willing to apologize.  Probably because – at least for me – it is so difficult.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. What's the productive, healthy way to respond to someone implying that God is potentially a disgusting pervert?

Try this.

First, look for the large points of commonality. @jewels8 is obviously deeply converted to the notion of traditional marriage, if not also temple marriage, and I suspect so are you. 

Second, in those relatively small points of disagreement, seek first to explore and understand before disagreeing.  And, use my first suggestion as the means of exploring and understanding, thereby creating a foundation for potentially educating. In other words, seek to connect before you correct.

Third, be merciful in your interpretations and allow considerable latitude and flexibility for change. It is not uncommon, particularly for new participants, to speak off the cuff and to not think things entirely through. In fact, typing out posts may be a way of gathering thoughts and testing one's own ideas.  Accordingly, it would be counterproductive to hold them firmly to what they say.and how they say it. . In other words, meet people where they are at on the path of development, and don't hold them in place.

Fourth, when they say they are sorry, then forgive and move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 2, 2018 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Try this.

First, look for the large points of commonality. @jewels8 is obviously deeply converted to the notion of traditional marriage, if not also temple marriage, and I suspect so are you. 

Second, in those relatively small points of disagreement, seek first to explore and understand before disagreeing.  And, use my first suggestion as the means of exploring and understanding, thereby creating a foundation for potentially educating.

Third, be merciful in your interpretations and allow considerable latitude and flexibility for change. It is not uncommon, particularly for new participants, to speak off the cuff and to not think things entirely through. In fact, typing out posts may be a way of gathering thoughts and testing one's own ideas.  Accordingly, it would be counterproductive to hold them firmly to what they say.and how they say it. . 

Fourth, when they say they are sorry, then forgive and move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

On a purely intellectual level, and not by way of implying your suggestions above are a bad idea (they are clearly excellent ideas)...

...but...

...per the discussion they are based on two very subjective ideas. Productive. Healthy. Productive is relative to what's trying to be produced. Healthy is relative to what is meant to be kept healthy. I'm not sure our objectives in these two regards perfectly align. Therefore, as much as I accept that to a certain end (and probably a good one) your suggestions are excellent, I also understand on the side that for another end (just as good, potentially) a different approach might be in order.

Edited March 2, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

On a purely intellectual level, and not by way of implying your suggestions above are a bad idea (they are clearly excellent ideas)...

...but...

...per the discussion they are based on two very subjective ideas. Productive. Healthy. Productive is relative to what's trying to be produced. Healthy is relative to what is meant to be kept healthy. I'm not sure our objectives in these two regards perfectly align. Therefore, as much as I accept that to a certain end (and probably a good one) your suggestions are excellent, I also understand on the side that for another end (just as good, potentially) a different approach might be in order.

Agreed.

I won't ask what end you have in mind, but will trust that it is worthy and wish you all the best in achieving it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Agreed.

I won't ask what end you have in mind, but will trust that it is worthy and wish you all the best in achieving it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sure the ultimate end is the same. God's will be done.

What I reject and tend to react against (probably too strongly in many cases) is that God's will can be summarized in the ideas of niceness and getting along.

The plain fact is that I'm not aware of a single prophet or apostle, including Christ, who failed to boldly, plainly, and offensively-to-some, declare truth. If the end was, as your suggestions imply it should be, for both sides to get along, learn and grow, be at peace, and walk away satisfied at the pleasantries after the group hug, then most of them failed miserably, up to and including their murders by those they had offended so deeply. It implies the prophets' and apostles' approaches were many times not healthy or productive. But, as I said,  healthy to what end? Their lives? Failure. God's will? Success. Productive to what end? Conversion? Sometimes. Many times - failure. But productive in doing God's will? Success.

Once again, I mean this as an intellectual response more than a criticism of what I do believe are effective and good approaches overall.

Edited March 2, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[wenglund]

It might be of interest to note that every woman married in the temple is bound in a covenant relationship with at least two men (or four depending upon how one looks at it) , and not just one, thereby entering into a kind of polyandrous marriage.

For those who may be wondering who the other man or men are,  it is Christ or the Godhead.

And, given that Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride, when we are baptized, we  became or become one of tens of millions of brides, and this is typically our first marriage that happens years before our second marriage in the temple.

What do you think, @jewels8?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 2, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm sure the ultimate end is the same. God's will be done.

What I reject and tend to react against (probably too strongly in many cases) is that God's will can be summarized in the ideas of niceness and getting along.

The plain fact is that I'm not aware of a single prophet or apostle, including Christ, who failed to boldly, plainly, and offensively-to-some, declare truth. If the end was, as your suggestions imply it should be, for both sides to get along, learn and grow, be at peace, and walk away satisfied at the pleasantries after the group hug, then most of them failed miserably, up to and including their murders by those they had offended so deeply. It implies the prophets' and apostles' approaches were many times not healthy or productive. But, as I said,  healthy to what end? Their lives. Failure. God's will. Success. Productive to what end? Conversion? Sometimes. Many times: failure. But productive in doing God's will. Success.

Once again, I mean this as an intellectual response more than a criticism of what I do believe are effective and good approaches overall.

I took it in the gracious spirit it was intended. 

However, my intent wasn't to get along, but rather progression  Sometimes that occurs best through patience and long-suffering and nurturing and  sometimes it occurs best through reproving betimes with sharpness.

And, not always are we perfect in picking which is actually best in a given situation with certain people, thus giving us reason to be merciful in hopes that others will forgive our mistakes.

As one who typically leads with the reproving betimes and showing increased love afterwards, I have begun to consider the value in reversing the order. I'll see how it goes., 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

sometimes it occurs best through reproving betimes with sharpness.

On a related side thought: have you ever broken down the meaning of reproving betimes with sharpness?

In doing so, I have personally concluded (wouldn't ever imply that my understanding of it is the full gospel truth of the matter) that it should be read generally as:

"....correcting quickly with clarity when moved upon by the Holy Spirit...."

Just a thought.

Where I feel I consistently fail is the showing an increase of love part. (Assuming that the correction(s) are moved by the Holy Spirit...which I also fail too...but not consistently).

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC, “reproving betimes with sharpness” is one half part of a divine good-cop-bad-cop formula.  The other half is a subsequent “increase of love”.  The two need to work together; one without the other limits effectiveness.  It’s easier to apply that formula in real-life relationships than over online discussion fora.

[The Folk Prophet]

@wenglund and @Just_A_Guy, in your opinions, what criteria establishes an action, comment, etc., as "an increase of love"? Because to me, that is also highly subjective to the individual. D&C 121 does imply that it may we be in the eyes of the receiver. That is somewhat scary to me.

[askandanswer]

I was listening to  the October 2017 General Women's session of conference  this morning and thought that the following quote from (then) President Uchtdorf might be relevant to this discussion :

When someone opposes or disagrees with us, it’s tempting to assume that there must be something wrong with them. And from there it’s a small step to attach the worst of motives to their words and actions.
                Of course, we must always stand for what is right, and there are times when we must raise our voices for that cause. However, when we do so with anger or hate in our hearts—when we lash out at others to hurt, shame, or silence them—chances are we are not doing so in righteousness.
                What did the Savior teach?
                “I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@wenglund and @Just_A_Guy, in your opinions, what criteria establishes an action, comment, etc., as "an increase of love"? Because to me, that is also highly subjective to the individual. D&C 121 does imply that it may we be in the eyes of the receiver. That is somewhat scary to me.

I can understand the concern given that too many people, including myself at times, confuse love with tolerance and indulgence.  I remember times when I have thought that if the person loved me, they would give me what I desire. And, that isn't always the case, if ever or often.

For whatever reason, our Heavenly Father has chosen not to give us a concise book of love, and so we are left to piece together the scattered fragments of that notion throughout the scriptures, while looking through a glass darkly. 

As a rule of thumb, I have found it useful, particularly when dealing with children,  to view the "reprove betimes" as the masculine or fatherly approach and the "show an increase of love" as the feminine or motherly approach, and so I try and follow the example of women when performing the latter. This, to me, is why, in part, the fundamental unit of society (i.e. the family) is traditionally headed by a man and a wife. And, I say this as a way of bringing the discussion back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Traveler]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@wenglund and @Just_A_Guy, in your opinions, what criteria establishes an action, comment, etc., as "an increase of love"? Because to me, that is also highly subjective to the individual. D&C 121 does imply that it may we be in the eyes of the receiver. That is somewhat scary to me.

I believe that the same individual that in D&C 121 told us to show an increase of love also said that increased or greater love is a willingness to lay down one’s life for another – as by example he did.  This is what is scary to me.

 

The Traveler

Edited March 2, 2018 by Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@wenglund and @Just_A_Guy, in your opinions, what criteria establishes an action, comment, etc., as "an increase of love"? Because to me, that is also highly subjective to the individual. D&C 121 does imply that it may we be in the eyes of the receiver. That is somewhat scary to me.

Indeed; because people are all somewhat crazy and will hear what they are predisposed to hear.   And I certainly can’t claim to be a model of implementing D&C 121.

I think, going back to Potter Stewart’s description of something very different, that “we know it when we see it”.  In a discussion forum, I think the danger that someone will quit reading you after seeing something they don’t like means you’ve almost got to reverse the process:  show love/build the relationship first, chastise second.  

Edited March 2, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[wenglund]

It is understandable that people, particularly newly weds, may consider marriage to be primarily about the relationship between the husband and wife, when ultimately and essentially isn't it really about the prospective children?

I get this from what was said to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and also applicable to their posterity: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." (see HERE)

This suggests to me that, initially, the focus ought to be on cleaving with the spouse, but then the focus should turn to the children--while not neglecting the cleaving.

I mention this because, in a way relevant to the ongoing conversation, while it makes sense that newly married couples will have a strong attachment to each other, and perhaps even rightly be repelled by the thoughts of infidelity and/or adding another spouses to the mix (this may be true for older couples as well--from my reading of church history, I got the sense that Joseph and other early church leaders, were as reticent about the concept of polygamy as their spouses, if not more so), the reorienting towards children may open the mind to perhaps higher forms of familial relationships, not necessarily of a sexual nature. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 2, 2018 by wenglund

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I just want to express my appreciation, especially to taking a mature, respectful approach to these topics and am sorry if anything I have posted came across in a negative way.  I don't feel I need to continually keep apologizing over & over again for it, as I already have numerous times.  But,  I will say again, that I do not understand everything, but I do know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. 

Mr Folk Prophet , I am sorry if I offended you. I really have know idea anything about you, other then that you are LDS and married, I apologize to you.  I really don't understand why so many on this thread like to be so blunt, but I really do appreciate the few that have been really kind and compassionate and what I feel a Christ-like connection with.  I know I have made some mistakes. 

I know people don't usually see a need to change there ways and I can be stubborn too, but I want you all to know that I have always been and am an active LDS member and am a very serious member, I mean, you know how some members go see movies that shouldn't be seen, and tv that shoudn't be seen, and do things on Sunday, the list goes on, I am not saying I'm better than anyone, but just to give you an idea of who I am, I have never b een that way, my spouse is not that way, and our kids are not that way. 

We have 4 kids, 2 with special needs, 1 very severe.  He is 17 and like a toddler mentally.  He has high energy and is everywhere, like you wouldn't believe.  The other is high functioning autistic, doing a service mission.  He is our oldest.  Born with a rare congenital heart condition and has a feeding tube and 11 food allergies.  So, I'm sorry if I come across hard sometimes.  Life isn't easy, but its ok.  Maybe if we all get to know each other better, we can be kinder and judge less. Peace brothers and sisters.

It sounds as if you have a very special mission in this life with some very special children.  It sounds that you were given children that need a great amount of love and that you are one that was chosen to be their mother to help them in that aspect.

I appreciate your testimony as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.  It sounds as if you have a testimony of temple marriage and the great bonds between family. 

I had several children myself, but I did not have the trials that you have had with your children.  You must be a great women to be able to help your children in such a special way.

As this thread is about our hopes on an eternal family, I think your children probably get a special feeling knowing that they have such a special mother and that they can be with their family forever.

[lostinwater]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

When someone opposes or disagrees with us, it’s tempting to assume that there must be something wrong with them. And from there it’s a small step to attach the worst of motives to their words and actions.

+1

And God i think spreads His Wisdom about.  Where one is willing to look for it is a personal decision (and that's fine), but i think that often, it lies at least a little bit further outside of our comfort zones than many of us would like to admit - myself included.   

it strikes me as being far too coincidental that each one of us - virtually without exception - believes that despite the 1 in 7,600,000,000 or so odds of being the case - OUR specific worldview - or the one we have mixed together and had shaped by the factions to which we ascribe - is the most correct one there is - and that even when at various times in our lives have it proven to us that such is not the case - even to our own satisfaction, merely make a minor adjustment, and then go back to believing ourselves to be entirely correct, with virtually no conflict about any other beliefs we still hold as immutable facts.  

And that's hardly a criticism - no person can exist without erecting at least a few walls to protect their worldview and provide some semblance of stability.

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

+1

And God i think spreads His Wisdom about.  Where one is willing to look for it is a personal decision (and that's fine), but i think that often, it lies at least a little bit further outside of our comfort zones than many of us would like to admit - myself included.   

it strikes me as being far too coincidental that each one of us - virtually without exception - believes that despite the 1 in 7,600,000,000 or so odds of being the case - OUR specific worldview - or the one we have mixed together and had shaped by the factions to which we ascribe - is the most correct one there is - and that even when at various times in our lives have it proven to us that such is not the case - even to our own satisfaction, merely make a minor adjustment, and then go back to believing ourselves to be entirely correct, with virtually no conflict about any other beliefs we still hold as immutable facts.  

And that's hardly a criticism - no person can exist without erecting at least a few walls to protect their worldview and provide some semblance of stability.

Well said!.

In fact, we are endowed by the story of a walled garden from which the Lord casts us out in order that we may become as Him, knowing good from evil. We tend not to grow unless we venture outside the walled garden of comfort and order, and explore the unknown and potential chaos It is only by extending ourselves beyond that walled garden that the creative process continues, where the formless is given form and the potential chaos is given order.

Said another way, progress in life is a repetitive cycle of living for a time in our birthplace or homeland, and then being commanded to  journey to a strange and promised land. Such is the context of our Abrahamic covenant, or rather our new and everlasting covenant of marriage (Again, I mention this as a way of turning things back to the topic).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

show love/build the relationship first

What if you suck at that?

Because it seems to me that being good (particularly in the mind of a random stranger) at building relationships is not the commandment. Nowhere are the charismatic and diplomatic touted as those who will be saved.

Not saying shouldn't try. 

But it also seems disingenuous and full of guile to pretend something you don't believe or feel. Which means, I suppose, once more, seeking commonality. Of which I have very little with some people.

Challenging.