Apologies

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Kengo, I'm going to call you tonight just for the heck of it. I expect you to answer and talk to me for hours...I'm sure you won't mind.

OK, as long as you don't mind my answering the phone, "Lexus Enform, this is Kenneth.  Where would you like to go today?" while I look at Google Maps on the Internet!  

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

This blog also really helped me.  A lot.

How to Pray so God can Answer

I've posted this numerous times before, but in case someone hasn't seen it yet (what the heck!): https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/on-gods-injustice/

This, too:

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/trusting-god/

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

The clouds broke. To quote the man who was turned into a newt by foul witchcraft:

"I got better."

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The clouds broke. To quote the man who was turned into a newt by foul witchcraft:

"I got better."

So happy to hear this!!!

[Traela]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The clouds broke. To quote the man who was turned into a newt by foul witchcraft:

"I got better."

So it was just a flesh wound?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Desire is the beginning of sorrows.  The Buddha

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

So it was just a flesh wound?

 

Pretty much. I got a good lesson out of it though so hopefully one tiny step closer to exaltation.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Desire is the beginning of sorrows.  The Buddha

A life without desire is bereft of joy. The Nehor

This is why I cannot stomach Buddhism. It implicitly concludes that between joy and sorrow sorrow is the more prevalent and powerful and it is better to kill both. I would rather be a human who weeps and smiles and laughs with all the pain and rapture that involves than to cut out the potential for both.

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Desire is the beginning of sorrows.  The Buddha

Yep.  If I don't "want," I don't have to be disappointed by "not getting."  

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Desire is the beginning of sorrows.  The Buddha

 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... A life without desire is bereft of joy. The Nehor

This is why I cannot stomach Buddhism. It implicitly concludes that between joy and sorrow sorrow is the more prevalent and powerful and it is better to kill both. I would rather be a human who weeps and smiles and laughs with all the pain and rapture that involves than to cut out the potential for both.

You (and Stargazer) misunderstand the Buddha, my young Padawan.   (And I'm treading in very deep water here, since I'm sure that the venerable Robert F. Smith has forgotten more about Buddhism ... among many other things ... than I'll ever know: By contrast, one can fit everything I know about Buddhism in a very small thimble!)

While I believe (as I'm sure you do) in the principle of opposition in all things as taught in the Book of Mormon and in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and while everything does have its opposite, the absence of [x] does not necessarily dictate the presence of [y].   [Not x] is simply [not x].  Thus, one need not be sorrowful even in the absence of joy.  One can, for example, be content, even if one is not necessarily joyful.  The Buddha was teaching a principle similar to that taught by the Apostle Paul: "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11). Daniel, Meschach, Shadrach, and Abed-Nego taught and adhered to a similar principle: They didn't want to die in King Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace, but they were prepared to accept whatever came (see Daniel 3:17-18). And while I may not agree with it in every particular (and while it's a bit too "New-Agey" in spots for me), there's a lot of wisdom in Max Ehrmann's "Desiderata": http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html.  And if our overarching purpose in being here is to learn to subject our will to God's (see Matthew 26:39), perhaps that's why "desire [at least, if our desires and God's desires are different] is the beginning of sorrows."

I expand a bit on the idea of a neutral between extremes (opposition in all things notwithstanding) here: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/im-okay/

Edited April 12, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

You (and Stargazer) misunderstand the Buddha, my young Padawan.   (And I'm treading in very deep water here, since I'm sure that the venerable Robert F. Smith has forgotten more about Buddhism ... among many other things ... than I'll ever know: By contrast, one can fit everything I know about Buddhism in a very small thimble!)

While I believe (as I'm sure you do) in the principle of opposition in all things as taught in the Book of Mormon and in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and while everything does have its opposite, the absence of [x] does not necessarily dictate the presence of [y].   [Not x] is simply [not x].  Thus, one need not be sorrowful even in the absence of joy.  One can, for example, be content, even if one is not necessarily joyful.  The Buddha was teaching a principle similar to that taught by the Apostle Paul: "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11). Daniel, Meschach, Shadrach, and Abed-Nego taught and adhered to a similar principle: They didn't want to die in King Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace, but they were prepared to accept whatever came (see Daniel 3:17-18). And while I may not agree with it in every particular (and while it's a bit too "New-Agey" in spots for me), there's a lot of wisdom in Max Ehrmann's "Desiderata": http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html.  And if our overarching purpose in being here is to learn to subject our will to God's (see Matthew 26:39), perhaps that's why "desire [at least, if our desires and God's desires are different] is the beginning of sorrows."

I expand a bit on the idea of a neutral between extremes (opposition in all things notwithstanding) here: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/im-okay/

Wait... what?  How do I figure in this thread again?  I had merely read it, not contributed to it.  Unless by observing it I had incidentally collapsed the state vector in some way?

Plus, I cannot remember ever having commented upon the Buddha in MDDB.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Stargazer

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Wait... what?  How do I figure in this thread again?  I had merely read it, not contributed to it.  Unless by observing it I had incidentally collapsed the state vector in some way?

Plus, I cannot remember ever having commented upon the Buddha in MDDB.

Don't take my comment as an undue indictment, but you did upvote The Nehor's comment.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don't take my comment as an undue indictment, but you did upvote The Nehor's comment.

OK, but no, I do take that as an undue indictment (enjoying your lawyerly language), because I wasn't upvoting any supposed misunderstanding of the Buddha, merely indicating my enjoyment of The Nehor's take on life, and alternative viewpoint.

I do realize that the Buddha was trying to entice people away from undue concern for material things and accomplishments.  And I understand his point: if I were to have an undue concern for such things then I would be a rather miserable man.  Not that I would refuse great plenitude of material possessions or accomplishments, should such come my way, but I find that Heavenly Father has blessed me more than adequately in the realm of spirit and love, such that any material wealth would be nothing more than icing on the cake.

[Kenngo1969]

Stargazer,

I'm not a lawyer  ... I just play one here on MA&DB.  

[Stargazer]

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Stargazer,

I'm not a lawyer  ... I just play one here on MA&DB.  

I understand that you are not a lawyer.  However, even a non-lawyer can write in a lawyerly fashion!