Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Chum

Members
  • Posts

    2,172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chum

  1. On 12/24/2023 at 9:34 PM, MustardSeed said:

    Will someone describe what talking about a trauma actually does for a person? I’m too close to it, but asking for a friend.  Seems like a dumb question from a therapist I know. 

    Pain is pressure. Talking introduces pathways for pain flow which relieves pressure. 

  2. I'm hearing from the authorities in 2024 that the borders are closed and we won't be allowed in.

    What do we do now?

  3. A Rough Sketch for a Proposed Film Dealing with the Powers of Ten and the Relative Size of Things in the Universe (1968)

    My mom worked a doz blocks north of the National Mall. In the summer I'd ride in with her and disappear until it was time to go home. The Air & Space museum opened on my 10th birthday and had this film playing in a room at the east end of the main walkway. I was mesmerized by it, watching it repeatedly until I got shooed away. Next day I'd be back and so my grade school summers went. Also sneaking around the Capitol or any building at all I could get into. 10yo's didn't get arrested for exploring in the 1970s.

    They remade it in 1977 but without Judith Bronowski's hypnotic narration it wasn't the same.

  4. 16 hours ago, CV75 said:

    I don't see how they can [implant things in our minds]. It may appear so to us, but they are using some kind of pathway from their minds to ours

    We communicate thru senses. Bypassing those channels mean they're impacting the mind directly. Do you suspect they can bypass sensory communication channels?

  5. 4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    Yes. I’m referring to the fact that at least alcoholic behavior is proven to be a legitimately concrete reality. It still sounds bad to blame behavior on alcohol…. That said, we have alcohol laws for a reason. 

    To be fair we have lots of laws for lots of reasons. Commonly, unethical and misguided reasons. I'm saying that to clarify that that laws don't come with any built-in validity. It makes them terrible at validating things.

  6. 4 hours ago, CV75 said:

    Since enticing is not controlling, no one has the power to control another's mind. Even God, to  my understanding.

    Okay, enticing. I'm good with whatever verb you want. We're saying a fallen angel can introduce enticement directly into someone's mind, correct?

    If people can't receive temptations in their mind, we should probably clarify that now.

     

  7. 14 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

    Without the science to support. 

    And again, I'm not specifically debating this part. His explanation depends on us sharing a reality with beings that have actual freaking mind control powers. With some bad beings at that.

    and sidebar: Mind Control isn't a great term because it hints at total control. But injecting thoughts or impulses in a way that bypasses all of the the sensory methods - this clearly crosses a fat important line.

  8. 20 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

    Without the science to support. 

    I don't know that science is the deciding factor here. His intent seems to be diluting culpability and I think it should fail immediately due to weaseling.

  9. 21 hours ago, CV75 said:

    I would say either delegation and coordination of effort (if devils can pull that off!) or there's plenty of the 3rd part to work on us.

    Yes but delegation to who? Satan's minions are from the same batch of people that we're from. Or are we talking about fallen angels?

    Who is on the list of beings that have actual mind control power?

  10. 58 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

    I don’t know that I truly believe in the traditional narrative of the devil .

    My first post on the board was me asking how the adversary inserts thinky things into our brains, how he does it planet-wide while individually customizing each product. It's an astonishing ability and I found it curious no one had ever set out define what could be defined about it.

    At first no one would engage the Q because the Q+my username = they thought I was Ahab. So I changed my username and asked again. I got some responses but none of them really addressed the Q directly so I let it go.

    Maybe the Q eludes thinking about.

  11. On 11/26/2023 at 11:36 AM, Tacenda said:

    Thumbs down on the church building these in Nebraska ... If that's the plan, I'm guessing about that.

    The Church's large land purchases are typically about farming. Usually cattle farming. I did find Farmland Reserve owns huge orange groves in FL but I think that'll be ranch land too.

    Cattle farming brings different concerns tho.

    On 11/26/2023 at 11:36 AM, Tacenda said:

     Thumbs down on the church ... taking land from farmers who would like to compete with the church in buying the land. If that's the plan, I'm guessing about that. But the church wields the wealth and cuts out the entire population that can't afford or even come close to being able to compete, even the very wealthy. That's what kind of behemoth the church is . IMO, the church is a monster as far as this goes. I bet God isn't happy at all.

    Nehor mentioned buying corporate-owned land. In 20yrs of these stories, I've only ever read about corporate land-holders as who the Church is buying from. It's not a complete picture but it may well reflect the complete picture.

    And from what I've seen, the sellers are typically massive family-named entities. In other words, it's the same 800lb gorillas that convert actual family farms into family-sounding industrial food producers.

    None of this means I think Church's actions shouldn't be scrutinized. They should - but within context.

  12. 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:
    On 11/2/2023 at 10:46 PM, Navidad said:

    I don't question the validity of the vision;

    I'm asking so I can understand better. This seems to say that you accept the vision.

    I don't think he is saying he accepts the vision. I think he is referencing a state where folks question the first vision  - and saying he isn't in that place. And that's all he's saying there.

    Why I suspect this might be confusing:  We could interpret his phrasing to be a wording style, the one where we use understatement to signal something much more affirming.

  13. 4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

    To paraphrase a quote attributed to Twain, it's easier to create heroes than it is to dethrone them. ... Makes you wonder which of our historical heroes were not who we thought they were.

    Yeah. I came to the conclusion that the hero thing is problematic, possibly doing more harm than good.

    It furthers an existing problem where we don't consider conflicting aspects. Instead, we amplify stuff we like and then play Mental Twister to ignore what we don't. This is so dumb. We turn complex people (everyone) into simplistic constructs that get blown over by the right breeze - shocking everyone around.

  14. 3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

    Actually it is creepy. She was 16 and he was 37 at the time this convo took place. It was creepy back then too.

    re: The sort of inappropriateness you're focusing on.

    Our modern concern for youth's sexual wellbeing is a fairly recent development. Freaking out about awful abuse brings gobs of money and power today. Before that, there wasn't much interest.  Kids who went to LEO in the 1970s got gastlit. In the 1990s they got a swat-team.

    We went from creeps exploiting kids to - Who isn't exploiting kids?

  15. 3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

    Actually it is creepy. She was 16 and he was 37 at the time this convo took place. It was creepy back then too.

    A lot of relevant changes happened between then and now; each had it's own impact on public opinion of age differences.

    Mary (Jesus' mom) was 13 when she was paired up with Joseph.  In historical census, we see widowed dad's picking a 2nd young wife (and later a 3rd) and adding on to the family.  FF to now and we've drastically lowered the death rates of infants, birthing mothers, pretty much everyone.

    We see very young motherhood very differently than we did.

  16. On 10/9/2023 at 6:57 PM, The Nehor said:

    From Elder Ballard’s talk:

    Quote

     There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

    Do they though? How long do you have to live before that starts happening?

    I preach a version of Eld Ballard's assertion (mostly here for whatever reason). Boiled down it's this: File the discrepancy away until it can be reworked with a different perspective.

    Restated, it's usually dumb to allow an unexpected understanding to force a change in commitment now now now. We can instead file it away and consider it over time. Usually.

    The point is to disarm bad-faith actors who attack ideologies by leveraging discrepancies and flaws - and may have hit on something that needs time to be properly understood.  Broader context can and does change a picture. And one is less likely to be duped when one thinks things thru.

  17. 1 hour ago, bluebell said:

    if there are many people who needed to hear the prophet's words on addiction, then how could it have been worded in way that lessens the hurt of others?  Trying to take the same message and say it in a better way makes sense to me.

    This is important. 

    To restate a bit: While I can work with what I have, some folks are in crisis now and need answers today because they do.  And for a meaningful number, Pres Nelson's instruction is reasonably understood to be a poor fit.

    I think all I can do today is be mindful of that. Maybe tomorrow some opportunity to bring improvement will arise.

  18. 1 hour ago, kllindley said:

    Personally, I don't think we can state that President Nelson's words are damaging. We are barely a week out. How do you propose we measure and evaluate the impact of his words? When do we make that determination? Immediately after? 3 months? Six months? A year? What number of people would qualify as significant? 

    "Might" may very well be the best word to talk about the impact of President Nelson's talk. 

    ATM I want to better evaluate Pres Nelson's talk, not pass judgment. What I'm looking for today are well-reasoned and educated opinions and I'm getting those.

    Eventually I'll want to compare and contrast what I know. On that day it'd be nice if I find harmony but I might not. That's okay.

  19. 54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    I have considered it and I can see how it might be more damaging.

    I'm going to leverage the technicality that you only asked Pogi to let this go, because I really, really, really want a response to something. I promise to limit myself to one possible followup.

    How would you feel about rewording this from I can see how this might be damaging (which nods toward negligible damage) to I can see how this is damaging to a significant number (less than most)?

    I don't want to lock you into the phrase. You can rewrite to something more appropriate.

    I think your answer would fill in blanks for me.

  20. 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Most Israeli-Palestinian peace accords have failed due to having a lot of promised “good faith” actions that neither side actually followed. Trying to pin blame on one side because of how many peace accords they would not accept is silly.

    I believe the Oslo accords are a glaring exception to this. Afafat's last minute refusal robbed the Palestinian people of their last best hope. I'm no Israel shill but I don't have the language to convey my disdain for Arafat.

  21. 21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

    After all we CAN do- He will step in.  But justice also has a significant part in the plan. 
    I have to remind myself constantly about the Grace part because the justice part was kneeded in so constantly in my developmental years. 

    I think by justice you mean consequences.

    I only bring it up because justice is a contrived thing and fairly sucks as a teaching tool. Consequences, on the other hand, can be awesome and incalculably helpful. Especially failure - without which I would know little.

  22. 59 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Catholicism has a reputation for guilt and shame. I think I missed that because I came to it as an adult and was able to see things more clearly than if I had been a child.

    I'll add something to this. I went to a newly opened Catholic gradeschool in the late 1970s. My education was fairly devoid of guilt or shame.  Religion class included lessons of psychological types. It helped us frame human conditions; it didn't inject judgment.

    It was a fairly different Catholic education than my brothers had in the 1950s.

    Religions, like people, can improve. We need to recognize past mistakes and improvements since then. Forgetting either is a problem.

×
×
  • Create New...