Emily

I'm not sure many of his regular followers would have the kind of personality that enjoys spewing vitriol about other religions. You would only follow his channel regularly if you enjoyed hearing about other faiths. He's gathered a pretty large following of LDS (that interest in hearing a little about other faiths coming into play) and had a ready-made group of people to welcome him into the fold. Maybe that put off potential murmuring.

In all fairness, if the only time you were exposed to members was through a visit to the Wasatch Front, you might buy into the blonde stereotype. The Northern European ethnicity streak is pretty prevalent in the Salt Lake Valley. When I first moved to Utah, I had a terrible time learning names because so many people in my new ward looked so much like each other. 😐 It is kind of amusing though...those "strict marriage laws" (I didn't read the article, but I imagine there is a twisted narration of the insistence that we marry in the faith) have led to a great many interracial marriages in the Salt Lake Valley in the latest generation. Faithful members moving into the area aren't all Northern Europeans these days. The "blonde" stereotype probably won't survive the genetic melting pot. I suspect the reputation for beauty won't go away though.

I pretty much never have the occasion to use any of the terms "in the wild" so it's not a big concern. But if it did come up, I would use the term the general community seems to be comfortable with. And I believe I compared the shift of the word "gay" to "Mormon" myself, so I'm not entirely sure why you are acting like I don't understand how that works. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that I'm telling people not to use gay. All I ever said was don't assume it's universally accepted and don't act like someone is homophobic if they dislike the word. Sentiments like telling someone they can't even use the word gay or questioning why they are using quotes (particularly when the context of the post clearly explained why I am hesitant to use the label without making sure it's acceptable) are critical reactions where no criticism was called for.

I'm starting to think that you don't know how to agree to disagree, because you just keep saying you disagree as if that is making a point. So you disagree. I'll continue to believe you are wrong. That's how it works. 😀

I can see that happening. Honestly, a person's sexual orientation rarely comes up in most of my conversations, why would it? But when it does, the person in question tends to say up front what label he/she prefers. "My partner and I are gay." If it's expressed, "I like men." or "I like women", I tend to assume they don't appreciate labels at all. I will acknowledge that I've only heard SSA being used by members who experience attraction to their own sex. It's a term that makes sense to me so I prefer using it as the generic term because my brain has not transitioned away from the negative connotations of gay and homosexual and my nearest and dearest, who are the only SSA examples I have to work with, don't like the other labels. However, if someone wants to be called gay, queer, homosexual or maybe just by their first name with no label, that's the best term.

Southwest 60s and 70s. And it was specifically applied to homosexuals who lived a hedonistic lifestyle of prowling through bars and resorts looking for temporary sexual partners. I mean seriously, it was derived from the original meaning of the word "Gay" as being free, easy, showy, light hearted, etc.. and was originally applied to male prostitutes. The meaning has obviously shifted, but that doesn't mean everyone's perception followed the shift.

No, that does not seem hateful to me. I would simply assume you are continuing the metaphor to express your perception of the importance of non-eternal marriage vs eternal marriage. Your perception is the reverse of mine. That doesn't make it hateful, it makes it different. I choose to believe that the Abrahamic birthright is extremely important, much more important than any purely mortal relationship, no matter how close, warm or intimate it might be. My scale doesn't match your scale. We agree to disagree. We don't have to throw around words like "hateful."

I've heard this as well, but only through social media. There's currently some pretty hard pushback (news articles) against transexual women who were born male calling themselves "lesbian" in the LGBTQ+ community, so terms are more nuanced than anyone outside the community can probably understand. I've only got a glimmer from friends, coworkers, a few relatives (one child recently announced that she is a trans woman, so I've only had about 8 months to try to gain some understanding of the trans movement). At any rate, you are correct. I use quotes to indicate that a word isn't necessarily one that I would use... But it's a term or label that is commonly used and understood by other people. I also use quotes when I'm actually quoting, of course. I have no idea what a "scare" quote is. What does that refer to?

I would call any person who uses a label that is offensive to another person "cheeky" so that comment was intended for "people in general" as well. My post was actually a general response to a couple of people in this discussion who were calling out other posters for avoiding the term "gay". It was not meant to be addressed to you in particular. It wasn't even addressed to the people specifically involved in quibbling over the avoidance of the term. It was addressed to anyone who questions a person's decision to avoid the use of the label of "gay." It is a triggering term for some people. I realize that is changing, but slinging the label around without being sensitive to the perspective of the person it's being applied to is wrong. If that's gatekeeping in your eyes, that's fine. I don't mind gatekeeping a label I know is actively hurtful to several people I'm close to, marginally acceptable to two and only fully embraced by one. I acknowledge that my wording made it sound like I was referring specifically to you and I apologized for that error. You can accept that (and in this case, I do mean just you) or not, as you wish. I'm aware of my intentions and don't really want to waste time explaining them further.

Yes. If you accept the scriptures and certain ordinances of the church as valid authorities on the subject, then marriage is essential to becoming a god. Why it's necessary, and what form marriage will take in the eternities are not clear. But it's beyond equivocation that marriage is essential and only between individuals of opposite genders, at least so far as counting toward a state of full exaltation is concerned. Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4 Doctrine & Covenants 132:14-17 Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-21 There does seem to be a possibility that some celestialized individuals will choose not to marry... "they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants...For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." Angels apparently have the ability to participate in creation under the direction of an individual who has full creative powers, as Christ and Adam participated in creation under the direction of Heavenly Father. But they can't create by their will alone. Whether or not Christ was fully a god before his birth is a subject beyond the scope of the current topic and there are differing opinions on the subject. But I would argue that He was not. He needed a body before he could obtain a fully exalted state of being. And a wife. Certain extent writings, traditions and logic support the idea that He was married and likely also had children. But canonized scripture on the subject doesn't bring up the topic, so any discussion has to remain speculative.

My apologies, I was using "you" to mean "people in general", not "you" specifically. It was a poor writing choice and created unintended confusion. I tend to post sporadically and may not get back to respond to a discussion if I get too busy to log back in, so I also apologize for the delay in responding. I used quotes because I'm not going to assume that everyone who is sexually attracted to the same gender wants to be called "gay." I know from personal associations that it is not a universally accepted term, so people in general should not assume they should be using it. Quotes, for me, indicate that I'm aware that the term shouldn't be applied universally. It's much like the term "Mormon" which I would also put into quotes if I were to use it to apply to members of my church. Being called a "Mormon" doesn't particularly bother me since I was raised in the generation of Mormonads, but it raises the hackles of members of the church of the previous generation, who had to put up with being confused with members of fundamentalist Mormon groups and will probably annoy members of the younger generation now that we are actively encouraged to stop using it. It's also an inaccurate term, as we are not disciples of Mormon, but of Christ. "Gay" is a similarly ambiguous term. Rightly or wrongly, the word was a slur to older generations, a political movement or participant in hedonistic culture in my generation, and also a word with it's own functional meaning of "lighthearted and carefree". For me, "Same sex attraction" is more precise terminology, since it describes a person's sexual inclination without implying anything about what they do with that attraction. Homosexual would also be more accurate, but I'm aware that it's not the preferred term in every social circle. I should probably just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" in any situation where I don't know the particular preference of the person/people I'm talking to -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation. The official name gets to be a mouthful so I end up using "LDS" or "the church" or some other shorter nomenclature that isn't quite as accurate or accepted and yes, in certain circumstances when using those terms, I would use quotes.

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. "Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much. We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage. We don't know anything beyond that. Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly. I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today. In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

As I mentioned, this is a matter of belief and opinion. You don't think it's worth it. I do. We can agree to disagree.

Well to begin with, "gay" started as a derogatory term and back when I was growing up, using the term, even to refer to an individual with homosexual preferences, was pretty rude. If someone chooses to call themselves that, I'm happy to comply in any situation when sexual preferences are an important component of the conversation. (Quite frankly, it doesn't come up much.) I had a work colleague who liked the term and made it part of his email address. Another colleague, who happened to be older and in a committed homosexual relationship, found it really offensive. He also didn't like "laddie, nancy boy, fag" and other terms that have been applied to homosexuals on occasion. I know this because he suggested the colleague use one of those terms (and a few others even ruder) instead... In a pretty nasty tone of voice. Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

It's not hateful, it's a metaphor. Any time you decide to give up something highly desirable that you have been promised in the future for something you feel an immediate need for right now, you've chosen the pottage. This doesn't mean the "pottage" isn't desirable and isn't important, just that it's not as important as a birthright. Everyone wants companionship, love and intimacy. But some of us believe there are things that are even more important, like eternal joy and exaltation. Esau decided his birthright wouldn't be important to him if he died of starvation. The context of several people's posts use the same logic: What use is is eternity if my life here and now is one of loneliness and sexual frustration? I can't say that I disagree with their logic. If the birthright is not as important to them as companionship, love and intimacy, then it makes sense to give up the birthright. It also makes sense for people who value the birthright to think it's a foolish choice. They would rather starve, perhaps even to death, then give it up. You can get mad when they point that out. Or you can be secure in your choice and move on. It's generally better for your own mental health to move on. It's tough to convince someone who is willing to starve to death to reach a particular goal that eating would be a lot more pleasant.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a couple of "gay" members who have chosen to keep their covenants. They participate in a larger LDS social community, both online and locally, of members who have made a similar commitment. Both choose to call themselves SSA as opposed to "gay" because there is a presupposition that if you are "gay" you are, or will be, dating or marrying someone of the same gender. It seems to be a common method of differentiation.

From the perspective of a non-member, this is a viewpoint that I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. (Another topic entirely.) From the perspective of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints who accepts at least the most basic doctrines of the church, this is an untenable position. An individual in a homosexual relationship will not achieve exaltation. They can't be sealed to their partner for time and all eternity, and they can't have eternal increase. In addition, they are violating a moral law, which comes with it's own loss of blessings. It's the same problem as a person of heterosexual orientation who chooses to build an intimate relationship without the benefit of marriage. The relationship will not continue after their life and they are violating moral laws. The state may currently recognize homosexual marriage, but God does not. No more than He recognizes a heterosexual couple who "love each other" but don't get married. Homosexual partners may potentially achieve contentment in this life, but to paraphrase scripture, "they have their reward." and will not experience eternal joy within that relationship. So it's a problem regardless of the attitudes of society. However, there's no point in going out of your way to make a child feel marginalized within a family. If maintaining the family bond is important to you, if you still love the child, then some activities your family enjoyed may need to be modified or given up entirely when a child has determined that a pot of pottage is more important than a birthright.

You triggered a host of reactions with this one, none of them good. So I'll just say in advance, thank you for taking the time to take care of these things now instead of putting them off until they fall into someone else's lap. 👍 If you haven't already done it, look into appointing a social security representative payee. It would be nice to do it in advance rather than having your kids spend hours trying to explain to a paranoid dementia patient why she needs to sign the papers (...for every !#x@$! important financial need in her life that she said was taken care of and was not...) Advance Designation Instructions: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ssa.gov/payee/advance_designation.htm%23:~:text%3DAdvance%20Designation%20of%20Representative%20Payee,if%20the%20need%20ever%20arises.&ved=2ahUKEwiUw4q8h4CEAxVKJEQIHcCRBfgQFnoECAwQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3SOO3h2a1ed3b2_hqCM-N7 If you really think there's a high chance you'll end up with dementia, look into a "long term care supplement" policy -- but don't use the word "dementia" as one of your reasons for looking into them. Medicare doesn't cover nursing home expenses other than for short-term recovery time after hospitalization, or a few weeks of "respite" when someone is approaching death. And medicaid only covers it if you are destitute and would likely die of neglect if left alone in your home. More Information on Long Term Care Policies and Why They are Needed https://www.medicare.gov/what-medicare-covers/what-part-a-covers/how-can-i-pay-for-nursing-home-care https://www.ncoa.org/article/does-long-term-care-insurance-cover-nursing-homes-a-comprehensive-guide Long term care policies are expensive, but so is long term care. You are left with four choices for planning for that. Either save enough personal, out of pocket money to let you pay around $6000 a month until death (adjust for potential inflation) for a reasonably decent facility, buy a long term care policy, or plan on giving away all your possessions, including your house if you own one, to family members who will be in charge of your care so you'll qualify for medicaid to send you to some pretty grim facilities. There's also the fourth option of moving in with your kids, but I don't personally recommend that option unless you've got a fantastic relationship with all your children and their spouses that guarantees they'll view your presence in their home as a blessing. I also don't recommend home care when severe dementia is involved. Physical frailties and a little bit batty, relatives can handle. The relentless needs of a paranoid, combative, fearful dementia patient can't be dealt with in a private home. If you don't expect full blown dementia, just physical failing, and can reasonably expect your relatives to help with your care, then you'll still need enough money to pay for a maid and/or home help caregiver services. Also set aside money to pay for any modifications that need to be made in your home or children's home to accommodate your needs. Long term care policies can also cover home help (look for that provision.) So even if you go the route of moving in with kids, or staying in your own home, you might want to consider a policy that will pay for home help. A policy can also help alleviate the attitude that some parents (and their children) seem to get that estate assets need to be preserved for the children's "inheritance" instead of spent on expensive caregiver services. Raspberries to that idea. If you saved for retirement, the money is to take care of you in retirement -- even if that means spending every last penny on a nice caregiver to do your laundry, mop your floors and help you take a shower On a somewhat macabre "happy note". If you have life threatening health problems, your policy premiums will actually be cheaper than if you are otherwise healthy but likely to need extensive long term care because of ongoing physical or mental disabilities. This is the one time, when you are buying a medical policy, when you need to make every illness you put on the medical history sound as life threatening as possible. 🥴

Ahh, so we finally get to the truth of your posts. Your intent is not to seek education, enlightenment or intellectual discourse, but rather to spread what you believe would be chaos, confusion and ultimately abandonment of faith. And you claim to have been actively attending church meetings in the last couple of years. Why? Do you just sit around every week, hoping someone will say something to upset the other members of the ward? Sadly, your chances of achieving this questionable idea of entertainment around the subject of plural marriage are slim. If the members in class have taken Seminary and Institute or read almost any academic book on church history, they will already be well aware of 18th century marriage practices and the various ways the Saints attempted to incorporate plural marriage into their culture. They might be rather surprised by your negative take on the subject, but the history buff members will be rolling their eyes at your limited grasp of the subject. You may run across the occasional member who missed the CES courses. These members might furrow their brows, then turn to one of the history buffs asking for further explanation. They might even launch into their own research on the subject. But members whose faith is secure would not react in the manner you hope. Therefore, your plural marriage "bombshells" would only hurt those members who are already struggling with their faith and no longer trust that God will have answers for them, if they ask. Chances are, these members are already skipping meetings, but if you manage to successfully target one of them, your toxic take on the subject could successfully add further injury to a wounded soul. You might even strike the fatal blow. The blow that will send them down the same path that you seem to traveling. And perhaps they will also adopt the questionable behavior of hanging out in church meetings, carrying bags of popcorn, waiting for a chance to upset their neighbors. But I really don't understand how the thought of any of that could sound entertaining. Did you also enjoy bullying vulnerable children in your elementary school years? --------------- Oh, on the subject of plural marriage... I've talked to my husband about this, and I actually have a list of requirements ready to go if it's ever reinstated. Wife number two will need to be a night person so she can keep him company while I go to bed early. She has to love cooking big dinners on Sunday, because I don't. And it would be nice if she liked sweeping and mopping. Neither my husband or I like that particular chore. I could use some help with the gardening, so a gardener would be good. It would also be great if she was musical. We could sing or play duets together. I'm actually very enthusiastic about the idea...my husband a bit less so. I manage to upset his routines on a pretty regular basis and another woman would just be extra chaos for him. But he could probably get used to it. 😁

I don't understand why you are waiting for an "substantive depth" discussion on plural marriage in a 30 minute Gospel Doctrine class. Are you also waiting for a substantive discussion on the practice of animal sacrifice, or a really nitty-gritty lecture on circumcision? How about a definitive and in-depth discussion on clean and unclean animals? I know some people think they are total experts after listening to a 30 minute podcast on the topic, but I'll assume you aren't one of those guys. So, do you think it's even possible to cover any of the above topics in any great depth in 30 minutes? Plural marriage was in the past, just like the aforementioned examples above, directions on how to handle leprosy, and whether or not women should wear hats to church. These topics are touched on briefly in gospel doctrine lessons, as needed, to understand how they fit into the historical setting. And that's it. If you want to get really modern on "topics dropped when no longer relevant" when was the last time you had a really long lesson on the evils of smoking? There are so many topics that are so much more important to modern members here and now. How about the sanctity of marriage in a world that has decided not only to treat it lightly, but redefine it entirely? If any teacher wasted my 30 minutes in a Gospel Doctrine class waffling on about plural marriage, I would think he was a fruitcake who was allowing his personal hobbies to dictate class content, with little regard for the needs of his class members. A few months ago, I spent two hours explaining to a friend why Celestial Law and homosexual marriage are not compatible. So that teacher better be discussing celestial marriage, not plural marriage, when I'm sitting in class If you want to study plural marriage, there are lots of books written about the subject. Go read a few. I'm sure some of the church history buffs on the forum here can recommend some good ones. Or look up the subject in the Maxwell Institute archives at byu.edu. Then maybe you can add a brief insight on the subject, in class, the next time the Church History manual is up for study -- instead of waiting fifty years for a teacher to spoon-feed you the information that you apparently aren't even willing to read the lesson manual to obtain.

So... If I'm understanding things correctly.. In some forgotten year, in some forgotten ward, some forgotten teacher decided to focus a Section 132 lesson on something other than polygamy. But I'm still trying to figure out what your point is by bringing this up? Teachers aren't obligated, nor is it even possible, to cover every section of the lesson. All Sunday School teachers are forced by time constraints to focus on one or two topical sections from the lesson. They are also forced by time constraints to prevent class members from derailing the planned discussion. Otherwise, we would be wasting our time every week listening to the guy in the back row reciting chapters from the Book of Jasher. (A true and sad example of a teacher who did not manage to control a digressive influence.) So again, what point were you trying to make? Do you perhaps have the misconception that Gospel Doctrine teachers are required to read every sentence of the lesson manual out loud to the class? It's really not necessary for teachers to do that. Most active adults in the church understand that class members can read the manual themselves, talk to the teacher or other class members after class, or just wait four years for the yearly topic to come around again if they are interested in a different section of the lesson.

I would say the lawn he has left is about 8'x16'. Very flat, rectangular space. The border around is wide, but I'm not sure the grass is less than 30 percent of the yard. If you count the cement driveway and path/side walks it would be. I took the class and submitted a plan, but they cancelled the rebate program that was in effect at about the same time, so I will have to look at the new guidelines and submit a new plan before I can move forward on the rebate program. Life got too busy lately.

"Waterwise" Utah guidelines aren't requiring rock yards. They mostly want you to convert to landscaping that can be watered by drip irrigation (ground covers and water efficient perennials and shrubs), and/or confine grass inside flat squared off borders that can be watered efficiently without water sprinkling onto sidewalks or running down slopes into gutters. One of our neighbors did nothing to their yard but dig out the sod around the edges like a picture frame around a rectangle of lawn, enclosed the lawn inside vinyl landscaping borders, relocated the sprinklers to inside the rectangle so the water sprayed only on the grass and no where else, and planted a few shrubs on two sides of the "frame". They were in compliance and got a rebate. It's certainly not inspired, but it looks neat and tidy, uses a lot less water, and he says it's a whole lot easier to mow.

What game is it? Sid Meier's Colonization? Victoria 3? Or something similar? It's funny, but most likely several of those types of questions were asked seriously and just as heartlessly by leaders in the past and sadly you still see that kind of attitude outside gaming, and directed towards real people in the present. The inability of people to get past racism (including "reverse racism", lest anyone think it's just a white man's disease) is sure an example of the strength of the natural man. Very big bug indeed

Where is this series of posts? I have a good answer for how to provoke a fascist coup, but I can't talk politics on this board. 😁