Calm

My mind went to the same joke. And it’s one of the reasons I was thinking borrowing the word was so problematic. We don’t need more language that leads people to be comfortable with treating the Prophet as infallible.

He is trying to understand your POV on the subject though, not LDS teachings.

That is the type of ruling that might be best, but is it required by the immediate context? If it is instead talking about the consequences of their actions, the negative stuff that is going to now happen because they and their posterity will exist in a fallen world, I find it unlikely that it has the positive qualifications you are attaching to it. I personally think viewing it as a description of a consequence as many scholars have propounded over the years rather than the ideal that God wants us to have removes the need to justify the language, adjusting it into saying something more than it does (inserting ideas as I think those who push for more idealistic ruling ideas are likely doing) or even going to incorrect translation such as that which started the whole thread (“rule with”). Isn’t it better with our current revealed and studied (both in the Church and research in sociology and psychology) knowledge of the best forms of couple relationships to reject the idea of ruling completely and presenting it instead as the partnership we are trying to teach, but can never really get there because we have to deal with “rule”? Posting a link that’s already been posted that supports it as descriptive, not prescriptive: https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-otl04b-was-adam-meant-to-rule-over-or-rule-with-eve/

You might want to hesitate about drawing conclusions when you are not a fabric expert. Btw, the cotton ones are coming in January. They have a higher priority for a mix of durable, easy care (many women will have to hand wash every night and cotton can take awhile to dry plus lose shape, stretch out quicker) and comfortable (both just overall, but also not causing infections and irritations) as all three are essential for most members in hotter climates as well as important for many in cooler areas. Many members, probably most, can’t afford to replace garments frequently when they don’t have a higher income even if cost is subsidized quite a bit. From what I have heard they did a lot of testing, so I assumed they chose a fabric that maximized comfort and ease of care while controlling for cost. Synthetic fabric can be made breathable and good for temperature control. All you have to do is look at the synthetic fabrics used in workout and sports clothing to see polyester can work to stay cool for many people. I am assuming this fabric is also good at wicking and breathability, but don’t have personal experience with it though I know women who have who are finding their new garments more comfortable, both because the cut allows air movement, the fabric is not too clingy, but fits the form well enough there’s not a lot of excess that can cause heat retention. I do cotton with a touch of spandex to give and keep shape, some with the mesh up the sides only as I just don’t like the feel of the synthetics and I have the money to spend on more frequent replacement, but I know many women who prefer the synthetic because it’s lighter and silkier. I can’t speak to the difference except to say I found one of the synthetics like wearing plastic wrap as far as breathability back when I was first wearing them early 80s. I quickly became prone to rashes (not infections thank goodness), so switched to cotton, but that didn’t work when I was in Kansas and needing to leave the house in 112 degree weather with over 90 humidity. Explained the problem to my bishop and he said you have to take them off as needed. Good and kind man as he was, he also instructed me that I never needed to ask another bishop if this was okay or not. So when I almost passed out from overheating two summers ago on my way to a doctor’s office (how I managed to overheat just in walking to my car after sitting in a slightly too warm for me office, don’t ask me), I did not hesitate to start wearing alternative clothing on hotter days. And am so grateful I did not have to face the embarrassment of having to ask permission from a man who might have no clue about what was going on and who might ask for more personal details than I am willing to give here….I don’t think my current bishop would, but I have two bishops in the past that I was so grateful to remember my former bishop’s counsel during my temple recommend interview. With the new garments I am looking forward to not having to make that decision next summer. Things are so much better than when I first put garments on 45 years ago. Would it really make sense to you to withhold the style of clothing that would help me and others in the here and now from being released in the States simply because there are far fewer women who need it here? I started having problems in my late 20s, so it wasn’t menopausal hot flashes that was doing me in. Do you think it makes sense to require women to wear more uncomfortable clothing just because it doesn’t cause health issues for them or even that it does cause health issues, just not the same ones as the primary concern? Many women in Canada even in my experience (I was one of them) have the same issues with rashes and infections with the older style garments both for bottoms and tops (under the breasts and arms can be problem areas). I understand they are not as common though as in hotter countries. I heard one woman say every woman she asked when she visited somewhere in Africa iirc had infection or rashes issues. In Canada, my experience was myself and several women I knew had issues, but not all. I did not hit menopause until later in Utah. It makes sense to target the geographical area with the highest incidence of problems when researching to solve the issue…which hopefully they have to a great extent, if not completely. It also makes no sense once you have a good solution to withhold it from another population just because only some of them have a similar problem. I suppose you could restrict them to only those with health issues, so we could get doctor’s permission slips or maybe strip down for a physical exam next time we hit Beehive Clothing or whatever the stores are called now to prove there is an issue. Or sensibly the Church could allow all women and men access to the healthiest, most comfortable versions of garments because suffering just for the sake of suffering is not something leaders actually want to happen.

Not much if you don’t dig into it, but just accept it as a basic fact….which is why it is so popular, imo. The issue I was talking about though is the problem of evil. And before you hit the idea of opposition, opposition in all things doesn’t have to require evil where there is good. Why not two good outcomes that cannot both exist requiring us to choose between them? One force pushing from above vs one force pushing from below does not inherently make one of them righteous and the other evil.

I think it works well for some people, but not for others. I am happy to acknowledge there has been an overemphasis on this POV without making it clear there are other ways of looking at our relationship that may be better at drawing some of us closer to God. I can also see those who have found this way very beneficial for their spiritual growth seeing those who see it as likely a less spiritually developed mode (as opposed to simply a different one which is needed because not all brains work the same way even when mature emotionally and spiritually) as snobs, lol. The visualization of the covenant path or spiritual development as pretty much a one size fits all doesn’t leave a lot of room for accepting different spiritual views as equally mature or helpful overall and that it’s more about how it works for the individual than the actual method (we may be at different points on the path in different areas, but there is little suggestion that the landmarks or methods of development are different). For example, fasting is taught as always beneficial or at least not spiritually harmful if done the right way and the only people who shouldn’t do it are those whose health won’t tolerate it. But fasting can affect people differently emotionally and mentally and it may actually make some healthy individuals block out the spirit more than let it in based on my experience (when younger and generally healthy), both personal and talking to people. Formal prayer with kneeling down and taking the time to receive the Spirit is also promoted as spiritually beneficial, but the way my mind works it drags me into a darker place, not lighter. I find spontaneous prayers in a moment of spiritual realization much more enlightening and spiritually sustaining as well as just checking in with the feeling of God’s presence I have had with me as long as I can remember except for a few years when some drugs suppressed it. It’s better for me imo to focus on trying to prepare for those moments than set up a routine for prayer that generally ends with me feeling like a failure because of what my mind does when understimulated (and it does not seem to be a process I can train myself out of or if I could, there’s going to be a lot of emotional damage done before that happens so it’s hard for me to see the value in that). I would like to see the Church start to address differences in people in ways more than just we are at different points along the spiritual path, but I suspect the academic study of psychology of the mind needs to figure it out better to give us the language to be able to teach these different ways effectively without confusing people. There is recognition on differences between male and female, but it’s often just addressed as roles. I have seen articles in church magazines iirc on extroverts and introverts, but there is so much more out there that makes up an individual, especially since few are all introvert or extrovert.

I hope you can get that mindset if you don’t already have it; if you do…wow, I am impressed and delighted for you.

As a whole or certain more vocal communities within the greater faith communities (I definitely dislike some of the hobbies and passions members group around as well as how politics often gets played out, but the majority of members don’t seem to be part of these situations it seems to me)?

In past Pew polls if one knew a Saint, one tended to like us significantly more than if one didn’t. In the most recent poll that difference wasn’t there iirc. My guess is this is due to the greater political polarization and the view of LDS as mostly conservative leading those on the left to be less positive about us even if they know a member (because they either know or assume they are conservatives) and a good portion of those on the right who would usually tend to improve how they think about us if they think we are also on the right still holding their religious bias that is against us (white Evangelicals are the group that have always disliked us the most iirc, but that might be only the report of our perception, I know they don’t think they dislike us as much as we think they dislike us…I need to check). I don’t have time to dig up the link right now. Will try to find it latter if I remember.

You don’t understand women’s biology if you think women can’t overheat in cold areas, especially given the modern life for many members in more temperate climes is mainly indoors these days in controlled environments, often where they have no control over what the temperature is. I could be outside in the middle of a snowstorm or in a lovely air conditioned restaurant eating and if I got a hot flash, I could be soaking wet in a very short time. Having sleeveless means less layers in areas I needed more circulation. Plus there are some synthetics that are more breathable and quicker in drying than others. Cotton can sometimes be worse if thicker as some older all cotton garments were (still have one I use at times because it didn’t get worn as much due to that issue) it can be slower to dry then some of the synthetic fabrics. The last updates of garments show that they are finally, truly listening to women and placing their physical needs as important as their spiritual ones. I am so very grateful this generation of young women won’t have to experience the difficulties I am others went through…or at least not to the extent we did. I anticipate things will only get better as fabric options improve with technology.

In the past when it was just priesthood session I know that men in my extended family felt it was okay to miss the Saturday morning and afternoon session because they would get “church” in the evening. And Priesthood Session apparently felt like a more important session to them than the other Saturday sessions. So if that attitude is continuing anywhere, the excuse not to disrupt the usual Saturday errands because of being able to participate Saturday night, I can see that as a reasonable excuse if they also want to encourage members to watch conference together as a congregation or a family since nowadays there is the option to watch the full conference pretty much anytime one wants and the most likely time people will make an effort to gather together to watch it is when it is first available, imo. Some areas may delay broadcasting in the wards due to conference being in the middle of the night as I understand it. I wonder in those cases if many of them were able to watch the evening session live, if perhaps out of order. If so, seems a shame to lose that opportunity as seeing something as it happens does tend to make a stronger connection, imo, even if it’s through a screen long distance.

I agree, it’s more that it feels like it should help and therefore is more comfortable to hold in my mind as a possibility even though it doesn’t actually move the needle off the problem, lol.

For me it is the issue of evil. If God is the one who chooses the combination of components for our personality, if we are evil, is he not the cause of that evil? Some might say choosing to embody an identity that will choose evil makes him responsible for it, but I can accept that as that would be him still giving a chance to someone else before the act to be condemned happened rather than prejudging them as opposed to choosing to create the being. There are other weaknesses, so it’s more I am more comfortable with there being an uncreated person of some sort though not satisfied with that solution at this point.

You are thinking American style weddings…there must be some wedding traditions that are fun for all involved ( the chaste bride waiting in her room to be ravished by the groom once he’s finished getting drunk with his friends and family never appealed to me, but there must be something out there). I have always wondered if Jewish traditional weddings were fun as they get portrayed as everyone dancing the Hora (which I got to do something like it in junior high iirc and had lots of fun) while lifting the bride and groom up on chairs…

Why do you favor intelligence as the starting point of our personhood rather than our spirits? (I do too, just curious about others) I am assuming the way you use “intelligences” rather than “intelligence” means you see our stage involving solely intelligence as an element being present as us still being some sort of entity.

I assume you have read Ben’s comments on intelligence in the other thread. Would be curious about your reaction to them since if I understand correctly you see intelligence as a self aware entity that gets embodied. Am wondering if you see that as doctrinal, etc or if you agree with Ben that current doctrine doesn’t go past our creation as spirits (however and whatever that involves). Ben has provided a lot of information about leadership discussion on this matter I was not aware of and am wondering about others’ knowledge, etc in this area. This is one post that pulls a lot of his info and thoughts together, there may be another one that I may remember, but I am in the middle of a doctor’s appt so have to wait on checking:

That exact thing has happened to me a few years ago and bugged me until it suddenly dawned on me what was wrong, so I tend to catch it when it happens to others these days.

This….except taylored is tailored. 😛

Not quite….your partner has to obey it as well for the first plus babies can pick some diseases up from the mother (even through breastfeeding with HIV and some others, so maybe if they get bottled fed because mom can’t with another’s milk who is not aware that is a problem) if being very nitpicking. And one can be married and chaste and still have unplanned and unwanted pregnancies if one doesn’t use birth control or even if one uses it, through failure of birth control. And there is the very unfortunate issue of a girl or women being the most chaste she can be and still having all of the above issues due to rape. I know you in no way mean to imply this, but am mentioning it just because there is still the stigma that some attached to rape victims as having lost their “virtue”, which somehow got substituted for virginity along the way. Not that virginity should be an issue either, but at least that makes some sense where virtue doesn’t. But the likelihood of such diseases goes way down if you do follow the Law of Chastity, which is one of the potential blessings (but not guaranteed) attached in my opinion as well. Word of Wisdom and certain illnesses aren’t always a guarantee either except I am guessing for alcoholism (if you never drink alcohol, it can’t be triggered even if one is predisposed to it). One can get lung cancer and other diseases without smoking or even living with a smoker, one can get hit with addiction issues taking prescription medicines. But the stats do show obedience to even the limited form of the WoW we follow today generally lowers risks significantly, overall I do agree with you. But I am also a nitpicker so must post a few exceptions to the general trend. As well as point out it may be a case of not suffering as much from certain issues rather than not experiencing them at all (you may get lung cancer, but without the added complications smoking would bring, for example). I have concerns if we start looking at obedience as a guarantee for certain blessings when it’s not, that can cause problems when we or a loved one ends up an exception. I think it’s better to not frame the ideas of x behaviour brings y blessings except in a general as well as making sure to mention there is no behaviour or blessings that exists in isolation. You shouldn’t pay your tithing thinking it is going to ensure your financial stability while buying expensive toys, splurging on high end restaurants, endlessly adding to a shoe collection or other behaviours that use more money than you have available for such things. You shouldn’t avoid smoking and drinking, but only eat McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and expect to stay healthy and full of energy.

Except Ordain Women didn’t want the Priesthood Session to go away, they wanted to be allowed to attend it. My guess is they weren’t unhappy it disappeared, but the effort also backfired by removing the women’s session. So activism for gay sealings might bring change, but probably not in the way expected. My guess is it’s more likely we lose the ability to be married in the temple and are only allowed sealings first (similar to what it already is in certain countries).

Can you point out someone who actually believes and feels this way because I have never come across someone like this?

Yes….in relation to our own needs and desires and to others (so we can aid them getting to the peak as they aid us). I prefer to think of obedience as preparing me to receive blessings I leave up to God since he knows my needs and desires better than I know myself rather than some sort of exchange (I give him obedience, he gives me blessings). Preparation will ultimately have me running at peak performance….though not in this lifetime. God will help prepare me as well as bless me. Blessings can even be seen as preparation for the next stage of development. Eternal progression….

And sometimes for LDS depending on the purpose of the conversation. How many members have misunderstood their teacher’s speculation as church doctrine? With sometimes tragic results as I find it tragic for someone to lose faith over a misunderstanding; actual disagreement over actual doctrine and history and therefore leaving because one believes there is greater truth elsewhere is part of a worthwhile spiritual journey, imo, just as seeking greater truth within the Restored Gospel is. Though I personally believe the Restored Gospel is the most efficient and effective faith path if one disregards any baggage someone has attached to their lives, good or bad, since everyone has baggage, I can’t judge if it’s the most effective or efficient path for any specific individual. When answering questions for FAIR, I try to use Church references as much as possible and try to limit my paraphrasing (as hard as that might be to imagine given my behaviour on the board). There are some topics that people ask that do not have an official position or even any mention at all in official publications and ones that are more about personal reactions that statements of facts, so some emails do get a lot of personal ideas from me….but I try to make that very clear in my responses, especially that my own ideas are not authoritative in any way but for me personally.

Teddy… Regardless of what Nehor said, I still would like to read your response to this because it does seem that the only meaning you attached to gender (whether assumed as interchangeable with biological sex or not) is procreation. Perhaps you could clarify your understanding as I would like to understand your POV on this. — It would also be good to see a public recognition that you unintentionally misrepresented Catholic thought given 3DOP’s clarification and the CCC quote showing you were wrong. It’s likely the same for Protestants, though I suppose there might be a Protestant denomination out there who sees heaven in a unisex neuter way (I believe one Evangelical who used to post here expressed the belief we do not have physical bodies in the resurrection, only spirits, but I don’t believe he identified his denomination so I don’t know if it was a personal interpretation or a doctrine of his faith community and I don’t know if that meant he also saw no gender or biological sex in those spirits or if they continued to have a gender). It would be charitable for the Catholics here to be reassured you will not continue to spread false claims about their beliefs just as I assume you would prefer they don’t spread anti-Mormon lies among their community (and for those who have posted here quite some time, I don’t see them doing that; in fact, I see them working at not doing it).

Impressive. I find it unfortunately not uncommon for people to refuse to give up the new use of a old term they have adopted because they appreciate the implications the new application has for themselves and they discount the confusion or even offense at times the novel use of it in an unusual and not that well matched context can cause for others. I appreciate you picked up on the problem and accepted it as worthwhile to avoid so easily. As someone who loves to use language in new ways and love to see others using it, I very much enjoy adaptations such as you made. It opens new ways of looking at old topics. It can show appreciation of others’ ideas as well. Unfortunately I have also seen confusion on both sides and even refusal to understand the other resulting from such uses, so when it comes to sensitive or complex topics, I urge caution. And religious terms often fall into both of those categories.