Calm

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.

It would be easier to understand your objection if you would identify the specific instance as the specifics don’t stay in my head from hour to hour, let along day to day…plus there have been times where you have explained what Ben says in ways that contradicted my interpretation… which means I need specifics to be sure I understand what you see as wrong here. Could it be possible you saw disagreement or agreement where it wasn’t or even that you misinterpreted what Ben said because you didn’t understand at that time his purpose for saying it? It is also possible Ben saw something as a claim of doctrine when you meant it as speculation and you were clear, but he missed something as we all do from time to time, even the closest readers. You quoting your comment, what you see as his disagreement and then his agreement would make it clearer whatever happened. As a side note, I find misinterpretations interesting because they sometimes expose underlying assumptions which helps me better understand others’ world views. Maybe that helps explains why I want people to take extra effort in conversations where I believe I see misinterpretations here and there (and am assuming I am making quite a few myself and would like them exposed so I can reorganize my thoughts better).

Nicely explained. Resonated quite a bit with me. Thanks for taking the time.

Yes, I see it as similar to someone trying to learn and speak a new language without having a dictionary available in a language they already understand or at least using a simplified form (like A Child’s First Dictionary with lots of pictures and basic words) of the new language and the person they are talking with refuses to tell them the meaning of a new word to them because that person thinks it’s unnecessary because they themselves are quite familiar with the term and therefore assume it’s easy to understand. Trying to discuss with clarity unusual words tied to cultural ideas and practices is extremely difficult with someone who lacks a basic understanding to begin with. I am reminded of when the missionaries taught a Chinese mainland woman at our home (her husband wasn’t interested) and they started out on the reason we needed a savior with the idea of Adam and Eve’s transgression and she asked “who is Adam?” She had a purely secular background and was as far as I could tell completely unaware of the story. Trying to explain it to someone who thought of mankind purely in terms of evolution, etc was problematic. Why would they be considered the first humans? Why would God have them name animals, what was the purpose of that? They sort of got through that, but mostly just said ‘we will come back to them later’. Sometime in the conversation Noah got brought up…. Then the missionaries decided to focus on the point of the lesson….Jesus and his resurrection….she was familiar with the name, but not too familiar with the story. We ran out of time before we got very far. Each time a new name was mentioned, it felt we were back at square one. Her English was decent, certainly the level of a Primary child’s though I doubt she had the associations to the words a child just naturally makes while learning, but she lacked all the cultural religious background knowledge that even a child raised by atheist parents would likely pick up in our society.

No, quite the opposite. I am suggesting that complex, in depth discussions are most effective when we are clear on the definitions we are using because no discussion uses the exact same format, premises, assumptions, etc. because we all come to a discussion with a different background and thought process. We can try to improve communication by taking the time to set up an appropriate format (which will vary based on context and purpose of the discussion), talk about premises and assumptions at the beginning of a discussion to hopefully prevent too much separation of interpretation. If we wait until we have already discussed much of the content and then one person suddenly comments “oh by the way, you understand that I use the term “_____” in this way” and the other has not understood the term in that way, do you think it’s wise to just continue on like it wouldn’t make a difference when the conversation might have taken a very different direction and now the one person is wondering where their misunderstanding led to misinterpretation of what was said. This is going to happen in any complex discussion and often simple ones no matter what you do, but it can be limited to more inconvenience than massive misunderstandings with effort in discussing definitions, expectations, etc. That you seem to think that is what I am implying is everything should to be conducted on the same setup is a great example of how our unspoken assumptions can drastically mislead us. Instead, my view is we can expand the variety of how we discuss things safely, without creating unnecessary misunderstanding by trying to account for differences by actually discussing what those differences are rather than just assuming we all are aware of them and can tell what the other is thinking….which is the result of treating definitions (which hopefully when discussed up front get assumptions unburied and discussed) as unnecessary, trivial, etc. One very basic way we use all the time in discussion is agreement on what language we use. It is easily recognized that one person talking English and another talking Chinese is likely to lead to misunderstanding even if there is some fluency in both languages for both participants. I am simply applying this basic principle of communication (shared language increases understanding) in a more thorough application. We will never be completely successful as mortals given our incomplete modes of communication, but we can do much better with some effort.

So the organized intelligence here is not a preexisting entity solely of intelligence, but what we more commonly call God’s spirit children?

Meaning we are co-eternal with God because he gives us a part of himself when he created/organized us?